Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 29	May 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Credit Union[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Sources are just a couple routine local notices plus coverage on a couple criminal charges against associated individuals North8000 (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, North8000. I think the Christian Credit Union in Edmonton probably meets notability; however this is not well demonstrated in the current stub. I think the bank will meet notability because of its strong cultural connection to Edmonton's Dutch community. It is where the vast majority of Edmonton's Dutch community has banked for almost 75 years and the bank has hosted and sponsored a range of cultural events in the city. I am happy to continue working on it in Mainspace, or someone can move it back to draftspace where I will attempt to demonstrate this. Tracklan2 (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tracklan2: Cool. From a Wikip[edia standpoint that requires finding and including an independent (of the credit union) source or 2 that covers them in depth. For example, a Dutch community source that does that. If you could do that in 1-2 weeks we could settle this right here as a "keep". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just expanded the article a bit and added a handful of citations Tracklan2 (talk) 18:02, 24 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!} 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - that's a lot of references over decades - including National - here's a better link for the National Post article, for Wikipedia editors. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Am I allowed to vote keep even though I'm the one who wrote it? The Christian Courier articles from 2002 are independent of the bank and discuss its history and mission/vision in depth. I agree with Nfitz that the national coverage and ongoing coverage across decades and publications is significant. Tracklan2 (talk) 4:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed. (although we don't call it a vote :-) ) North8000 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of the nominator on whether recent additions assuage their concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/withdraw Creator has made many source additions including a rock-solid-GNG source (which looks like it was hard to find). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 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.

There is no policy-based argument on why this article should be Kept and no strong support for a Merger. If editors want to work on an article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sago Sago[edit]

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

Unfortunately the article currently falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The article's three cited sources are either bulletin-style without commentary or trivial; regardless generally not WP:SIGCOV about the background of the company. A WP:BEFORE finds a lot of Sago products online but only a Verge product review and a staff interview from Kidscreen (?) seem to enter the standard of coverage needed. I imagine there may be more out there though. There's also a naming issue: if Sago Mini is the current name of the company, the article should not be called Sago Sago unless there is enormous coverage on the former state which is not the case. An obvious WP:ATD is to WP:MERGE what little there is to Toca Boca or Spin Master. Welcome any thoughts, particularly from users that are more experienced with notability pertaining to companies in this sector. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, and Internet. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to keep it forever by expanding it Tomasz22334 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the references too Tomasz22334 (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And even renaming it to Sago Mini Tomasz22334 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it can be a bit disappointing if there is consensus that the article is not notable. WP:GNG is generally a threshold for determining what articles should be included on Wikipedia because there is sufficient coverage to show that the subject merits an article. On keeping an article that doesn't quite meet that standard but could in the future, there's always the ability to develop an article in WP:DRAFT and we can definitely WP:DRAFTIFY the article as an option that doesn't involve deleting anything you've done. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand it, add more references and rename and move it to Sago Mini to keep it forever as a result. Tomasz22334 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's something that's up to you or an interested editor to do. The AFD discussion here is about whether the subject itself has enough coverage to merit an article in the first place. Although hopefully this discussion can settle whether there's reliable coverage out there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, most of the information on it comes from either sellers of its products, or distributers of the TV show "Sago Mini Friends". Although it is a Spin Master brand, I don't know if there's enough verifiable information on it to justify a merge (especially since the Spin Master page already has most of the information that I could find). Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undo delete Tomasz22334 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide WP:THREE sources that talk about Sago Sago in detail. Proving notability is the only way you can help this article stay. Merko (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abandon this discussion Tomasz22334 (talk) 23:24, 7 May 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!} 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Entertainment[edit]

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

The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work. Remma2 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument. If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 23 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!} 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep So far the references are all short announcements of events, plus some mentions in articles about other topics. I think this establishes the "newsworthy-ness" of the organization but only barely meets GNG. I looked for, but did not find, an indepth source about the organization. That is still needed. Lamona (talk) 03:37, 28 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!} 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable organization with a lack of sourcing, apart from the usual promotional drivel to support its existence. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP/ORG. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 7 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Dring[edit]

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

PROD requested, but denied for being Grammy nominated. However, WP:ANYBIO requires winning once, or being nominated multiple times. Is twice good enough? I read multiple as something greater than two. So, fails ANYBIO. Even more, none of the references pass WP:SIRS, so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. Sources are database entries and press releases. No significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — to add to what UtherSRG said, he was nominated for one Grammy, not two, together with four other people. Also, the article is by a banned sockpuppet and paid editor, which we shouldn’t reward. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per this link [1], as well as the Grammy nomination, he has been nominated for a Golden Globe. Also - clearly WP:MUSICBIO applies here. ResonantDis_tortion 19:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With named nominations for ~~two~~ three notable awards, that is sufficient to meet WP:MUSICBIO#8. There's also sufficient WP:RS to show the subject meets WP:COMPOSER#1. I have cleaned up the article including removing non-RS citations and adding several more, which may not be multiple lines in depth but do contribute per WP:BASIC, so any "whiff" of paid editor contribution no longer applies. ResonantDis_tortion 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per the Billboard reference just added to the article - Dring was a named credit in the nomination of the Feel Good Inc. Grammy award. So he does have two Grammy nominations, plus the Golden Globe; I've updated my !vote. ResonantDis_tortion 15:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ResonantDistortion. X (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject specific guidelines are for guidance only - every topic has to meet WP:GNG when WP:AFD is invoked. It seems unlikely that we will find WP:SIGCOV about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. 2A02:AB88:4C01:7500:84E:6485:B66C:DC73 (talk) 22:17, 20 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!} 23:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also per WP:NOTINHERITED. Article is rife with the requisite heavy namedropping and coattailing (Jamie T in particular) in attempt to cover for lack of individual notability and weak press-release sourcing. Being nominated just once for a soundtrack song all the way back in 2010, signing an agreement, and his recent production for an unknown indie artist (Terra Twin) aren't enough for SIGCOV. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "all the way back in 2010" The date of the Grammy nomination is irrelevant as per WP:NTEMP, (2) Dring has been a Grammy nominee twice not once, the first in 2005, which is verified by a RS in the article, (3) The reason the article is "rife with the requisite heavy namedropping" is because the subject has made credited and verified contributions to a number of notable works, (4) two credited grammy nominations does rather indicate that notability by association does not apply, and (5) There are c. 14 words devoted to Jamie T, which does not appear undue, given that, for example, on the album Trick "sees Jamie T play all instruments alongside longterm collaborator James Dring" ([2]). I know I am probably repeating myself, but WP:BASIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER all apply. ResonantDis_tortion 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and fails WP:GNG. Can’t find independent reliable sources giving significant coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This discussion is leaning towards Delete but I don't see a rebuttal to the assertion that this subject meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. It's also common for subject in music production to mention artists they have worked with and albums they have produced so that doesn't seem like name-dropping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been edited further - which includes a certain mount of tidying up, but also more text and RS that confirm further songwriting/composer credit on notable works. ResonantDis_tortion 22:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the producer has worked with lots of notable artists and worked on notable songs and albums, however he doesn't seem to have the individual notability required to have an article. He has passing mentions in many references, but few of these could be called significant coverage of the subject himself. InDimensional (talk) 10:55, 5 May 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!} 23:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Cricket Association[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG or WP:NORG. Sources in article are all primary or passing mentions. Search for additional sources did not uncover any WP:SIGCOV. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and New Zealand. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as their own entry on sporty.co.nz describes them as one of the smallest clubs in New Zealand. Can't see any coverage in NZ media. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:11, 2 May 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. Editors can create their own redirect from this page title should they want to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Crystal (Fictional Character)[edit]

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

As a fictional character, fails independent notability. Disputed draft. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 23:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Sing 2. Only "sources" are from unreliable Wikis. Not at all notable. Lynch44 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability and poorly written. Like a test article. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'd support any admin closing this AFD early given the history and the editor who moved it into article space (who knows if was the editor who created it since that was an IP back in December) has effectively requested deletion/move back to draft space: Special:Diff/1221686889. (They also moved it back to draft space and removed the AFD template during this discussion; I've moved it back to article space for the duration of this AFD and, helpfully, fixed the tags.) I moved from redirect to delete since I don't think the non-standard capitalization should be made in this way. Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also support the delete. It really should. Also, the sources, which Lynch44 said. so, yes. SingFan2023 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I didn know what to do at first. SingFan2023 (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing Wikipedia:Notability Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This page isn't good enough. If someone wanted a bio on this character, there would be a page established for the characters of the Sing franchise. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I would think so. SingFan2023 (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NOTABILITY. Jontesta (talk) 22:06, 7 May 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 Larfleeze. This appears to be the consensus view. If you wish to Merge some content to another article, feel free to do so, providing attribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Lantern Corps[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources provided include two valnet sources (not great for notability), an io9 listicle (okay ish), and meaww which i have no clue about. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though the article currently relies substantially on just one major source, the subject itself seems to be quite notable in the DC comic world. It has several good and reliable sources that could be added to the article. I think it's the article's referencing that needs some work. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting yet, but stating that there MUSTBESOURCES isn't a valid argument. In-universe importance also has no bearing on an article's real world notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And are those sources are in the room with us? What can you dig up source wise? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. This article relies mainly on one source and until its referencing is improved, it should probably be draftified and worked on. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Larfleeze. That character seems to be notable rather clearly, and there are a number of secondary sources discussing the Orange Lantern Corps with reference to him (an exception being the Glomulus entry of Strange and Unsung All-Stars of the DC Multiverse). So as long as not more secondary sources are put forward, that would be my preferred solution. Daranios (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @ZyphorianNexus: or merge with List of teams and organizations in DC Comics in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Part of this page was also developed by @Jhenderson777:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claims of Zyphorian dont hold any wait as there has been no provided prof of such. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 12:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Larfleeze - Larfleeze is notable, but the "Orange Lantern Corp" is not. Unless things have changed recently, there is no "Orange Lantern Corps" as an actual organization separate from Larfleeze - its just constructs controlled by Larfleeze, or people who have temporarily briefly gained similar powers to him. All sources regarding the Orange Lanterns, including those present in the article currently, are pretty much actually about Larfleeze himself, so it does not make much sense covering this as two separate articles. Rorshacma (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Rorschacma. The sources appear to be about the parent topic, with not enough WP:SIGCOV to support a separate page. Even so, this is probably a WP:NOPAGE circumstance for how much the two topics retread each other. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Larfleeze for obvious sensible reasons. I don't really edit and rarely even bother voting anymore, partly due to nonsense like this. While my Lantern Corps knowledge isn't super-detailed it makes perfect sense as IIRC by definition Larfleeze and the Orange Corps are basically the same thing, so merge. What is dumb is that the term clearly has some use as a redirect and this topic never should have been nominated for deletion. The nominator should instead have constructed their case on the article's talk page as a first point of call, working on how the Larfleeze article could be worked to also cover the oxymoron of the Orange Lantern Corps, instead of just going "BALEET" as a push-button exercise, likely informed by their own disinterest in a topic. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Larfleeze per above. // Timothy :: talk 18:43, 7 May 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 14:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Vocational High School[edit]

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

Moritoriko (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but accidentially nominated the talk page instead. Their original rationale follows:

This school seems to fail WP:NORG and really all of WP:N as well. Oddly enough in my research to check if reached notability I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090315093609/http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/217375/state_warns_2_albuquerque_charter_schools__boards_could_face/index.html which *might* be enough for Danny Moon to get his own page but I still feel like the school is ancillary in all this.

My involvement in this nomination is entirely procedural; I have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, thanks I must have not been paying attention when checking if there was any prior discussion on the talk page. Moritoriko (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 26 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!} 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGIN and WP:GNG. The article has only one source and the subject doesn't seem to have significant coverage to prove its notability either. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:47, 30 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 USS Saipan (LHA-2)#1980s. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exercise Anorak Express[edit]

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

Not notable. No coverage in secondary sources. Entire article is copy/pasted from [3]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 23 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!} 22:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS Saipan (LHA-2)#1980s as an WP:ATD. Not independently notable. Jfire (talk) 02:49, 1 May 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 Nord Anglia Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Côte International School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, and WP:GNG. Only thing I could find in a search was a press release. Heck, it's not even the most notable LCIS school out there. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If sources aren't found, one could redirect either to Aubonne (locality) or to Nord Anglia Education (operator) though I think locality may be better. I'd have to check if Swiss newspapers covered this subject... WhisperToMe (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nord Anglia Education would probably be the best redirect here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:56, 26 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!} 22:18, 30 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 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ivanov (model)[edit]

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:NMODEL. Both references are from 2013 (one is broken). Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017. Does not meet wp:ANYBIO or wp:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, Fashion, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and United States of America. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 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!} 22:16, 30 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!} 23:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Loader[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 13:02, 1 May 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!} 23:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Olwagen[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:02, 7 May 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!} 23:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Weismann[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:PROF, or WP:AUTHOR. None of the organizations he was affiliated with seem to be accredited in any way. Psychastes (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found only a paid obituary. Reviews for How To Think About the Great Ideas exist but are credited to Mortimer J. Adler rather than Weismann. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Architecture, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak/Lean Delete (Awaiting more information) -- looking at Google Scholar I immediately came to the conclusion that there was enough to mount a keep argument. But looking more closely, it's tough. He has a complete tribute obituary in Studia Gilsoniana, a philosophy journal held in 188 libraries, which is generally enough for a WP:PROF:C1 evidence for impact in the world of scholarship. But as an e-journal, it is hard to tell if this is because of overzealous librarians who like to catalog (or subscribe to catalogs of) e-journals. "Music Theory Online," which is one of the top 3 journals of my field, but is free and (as the name says) online only, is in 1180 libraries -- none of the libraries actually "own" either of the journals. It's enough to contribute to notability, but not sure it's sufficient on its own. Then there are tons of tributes in less reputable sources all found on thegreatideas.org. Clearly Adler and A Syntopicon are notable, given the large amount of coverage, but I don't see Weismann's impact in any of the coverage. It could go either way, but my spidey-sense from participating in a lot of these is that it doesn't add up to enough for WP:PROF or GNG notability, and the fact that none of the articles that seem like a place to direct to mention Weismann helps my conclusion. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this stage, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. If there are more sources, will be a different story MaskedSinger (talk) 05:41, 2 May 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!} 23:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Escouade de contre-terrorisme et de libération d'otages[edit]

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

Tagged uncited since 2008 and the French article also has no sources. Maybe someone with more language skill than me can tell whether it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non. Mccapra (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources provided by the Wikipedia Library for ECLOT's native title is Pascal Le Pautremat's "Eau et stratégie militaire" (2007), which describes it in a paragraph, and Jérôme Brisebourg, Christophe Hannezo, Thierry Picq's "Forces spéciales: passer en mode commando pour cultiver l’excellence collective" (2021) in a footnote. Unless French media has further coverage, ECLOT does not have WP:SIGCOV. However, ProQuest returned no results and Google News articles seem unrelated. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 15:10, 5 May 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. I guess I'm technically supposed to wait until this runs full course, but WP:SNOW applies and the nominator has requested off-wiki that someone close this, so, IAR. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of England School[edit]

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

School with no claim to notability and thus not meeting WP:ORG. Was de-ProD'd by Necrothesp stating "secondary schools in the UK are usually kept" however SCHOOLOUTCOMES does state that "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist".

There is routine coverage online, of terms dates and school fêtes as you'd expect, only news-type coverage is that some of it's students have been victims of crime (while not actually in the school)[4] [5] which isn't anything unusual - There's also a little about the bus that was going to get cut and then wasn't, [6] [7] which I would only say counts towards notability if the article were about the bus, which it isn't. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and United Kingdom. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above and WP isn't a directory of schools. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a full page case study in:

Val, Brooks (1 January 2002). Assessment In Secondary Schools: The New Teacher's Guide to Monitoring, Assessment, Recording, Reporting, and Accountability. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-20637-7.

This also cites a paper by the Head of Science. That book has 134 citations. It seems to be mentioned in a number of other books too with an educational research focus. Research conducted at the school does not make the school notable by itself, but it is not insignificant. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Balsall Common where the school's mentioned, if notability cannot be established. It was opened in 1957. As might be expected, there's local news coverage on matters such as a school uniform dispute, theatricals, drugs, sporting achievements, exam results, headteacher appointment/retirement etc but haven't come across anything that makes this school notable outside of the area it serves. Rupples (talk) 01:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with any other secondary school in the UK, there's plenty of detailed coverage in government reports and in the local media. Easily enough to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I fail to understand something, can you clarify what's the significance of the school that needs the Wikipedia entry? 1keyhole (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What I see on the internet is routine coverage, social media (not considered to be reliable sources) and databases. The Banner talk 17:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well established school, created as a secondary modern in 1957, and with enrolment that was 1100 and has risen slightly with the establishment of a sixth form after conversion to a comprehensive in 1974. It has featured in national press coverage, including this article in the Independent [8] describing an innovative website developed by the school in 1996. There is significant newspaper coverage, including negative coverage about a drugs "scandal"[9]. Across the 66 years of the school's life, this news coverage is sustained. News reports themselves are usually primary sources, but in some cases they will be secondary sources regarding the school, such as the information about the school in the Independent article or the history found in [10] and [11]. In addition to the news sources, the school is cited and discussed in research such as [12] - a 7 page article that has a fair bit of secondary information about the school, some of which I have used alreasy to provide some citations on the article page. The abortive attempt to reintroduce selection, rejected by parents in 1988,[13] led to discussion in another paper[14], whereas there are also mentions in some books. I mention Brooks (2002) above. That one has a case study from the school which cites a paper written by the then head of science. This book has 134 citations. Hunton (2018) also uses the school as a case study, and both books contain secondary information about the school itself, as does the paper above (Schofield, 1982). The school website itself is well produced and provides information (not independent) from which an article can be constructed. All in all, I believe there is sufficient here to pass WP:GNG and it is a whole lot more than we would have for a lot of articles (but I am aware that OTHERSTUFF is invalid as an argument, so I'll say no more on that). What we are lacking is a book with a history of the school, but that is not a necessary precondition for a school article page.

Bibliography

Brooks, Val (1 January 2002). Assessment In Secondary Schools: The New Teacher's Guide to Monitoring, Assessment, Recording, Reporting, and Accountability. McGraw-Hill Education (UK). ISBN 978-0-335-20637-7.
Hunton, Jake (13 August 2018). Exam Literacy: A guide to doing what works (and not what doesn't) to better prepare students for exams. Crown House Publishing Ltd. ISBN 978-1-78583-354-0.

-- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSCHOOL has a threshold that non-profit schools need to meet WP:GNG at minimum, and I consider this met. ResonantDis_tortion 22:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources. Having a problem seeing how the report/book sources contribute to the school's notability. Mary Schofield was Deputy Head of the school, when writing her research paper so not independent. The Val Brooks book references a paper written by the Head of Science of the school, so again not independent; the page summary of the case study may contribute to notability of the research paper but not the school itself. The Jake Hunton book mentions a teacher at the school who created a DNS strategy, but there's nothing about the school. There's little content from the above sources that could be added to the article. The Independent article does contribute to notability; it's coverage in a national newspaper. Rupples (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I especially think that "School pupils smoke cannabis", "Headteacher retires" and "School builds an extension" could all be described WP:DOGBITESMAN. -- D'n'B-t -- 05:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I was clear about the limitations of newspaper reports. Yes, they are primary sources. But the level of coverage across the years is indicative here that there is sustained interest in a well established school, such that secondary sourcing likely exists. Indeed, more does exist. The smoking cannabis article leads to more national coverage, which I have now placed in the article. In 2003 a new headmistress hired a counter drugs firm to use sniffer dogs to prevent pupils bringing drugs to school, making national news.[15][16] There is also at least one notable alumna, Lorna Want, who I have added with a reference (write up in a national newspaper). The mention of the school in the newspaper reports are passing, but notable alumni point to notability of the school. The Schofield paper is not independent, because it is written by Schofield who was a deputy headmistress at the school, and is also primary in the research itself, but the placement discussed also gets national newspaper attention,[17] which is secondary coverage of the research, making the primary sourced material notable. And the primary source has secondary background information. And there is still more. I just don't have any more time right now to put it all together. But I am confident that this school meets GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The school made an episode for ITV's series Good Health, written by the school's drama teacher, and acted by pupils. You can see it here [18] and it is described in the Times Education Supplement for January 13, 1984 here [19]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to Balsall Common. Thanks to the effort of Sirfurboy not only have many more sources been found but they have been used to expand the article. There's enough coverage in national newspapers and local sources to establish notability under the GNG for me to strike the qualified redirect previously suggested. Merge is an option because the cited content isn't especially lengthy and could fit within the target article without making it irretrievably unbalanced. Rupples (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom: now a substanially different article to the one I nominated. I mantain that "because it's a UK secondary school" would never have been a good reason to keep it, but as it is now, there's sufficient evidence of SIGCOV to call the school notable. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's generous of you. The nomination is understandable, made in good faith and has led to the article being improved. What's more, many of the sources dug out were I suspect not easy to find and the nominator is under no obligation to spend hours looking; the onus is on those seeking to keep the article. Rupples (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the withdrawal by @DandelionAndBurdock is indeed generous, I disagree with the statement by @Rupples. Per WP:Before the onus is, instead, on the nominator to check for sources before nomination. A quick check on Wikipedia Library - e.g. ProQuest - identifies many sources for this subject. ResonantDis_tortion 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did check for sources, there's four linked to in the nomination statement. None of the sources I can see in ProQuest from the Coventry Telegraph support notability, viz, a piece written by the school's principal (not independent, 12 Sep 2015), a reader's letter from a former pupil (not independent, 17 May 2007), a panto writer staging a play at the school (a mention, 01 Jan 2014), an "advertisement feature" by the school's principal (22 Sep 2016). Granted, there's The Times (5 Aug 1992) on cannabis, but all I can see is a headline. In any case, we don't know whether the nominator checked the Wikilibrary/ProQuest. To be fair, yes, perhaps the search could have been more rigorous, but a lot of the news coverage found may have resulted from having access to paid-for sources. Rupples (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt the nomination was entirely in good faith, and that a WP:BEFORE was carried out. And the article as it was at nomination was also entirely unsourced and had been for 18 years, which is a very poor situation. Some sources did require significant searching, well beyond the basic due diligence suggested in WP:BEFORE. The "because it's a secondary school" comment seems to be elicited by the DEPROD by Necrothesp. I would say I think AfD is best for secondary school nominations. As we are often told, AfD is not for cleanup, but this article is a case in point: the only way to get editor attention to some articles is to nominate them for deletion, and sometimes improvement is the happy result if it turns out sources do exist. PROD doesn't tend to achieve that. However "because it's a secondary school" is no longer a reason to keep an article, per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, so once at AfD it is all about the sourcing. Thanks to D'n'B-t both for bringing this here, and for agreeing to withdraw. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:30, 5 May 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!} 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Pool[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NJOURNALIST. LA Times sources are not WP:Independent, and thus I do not see them as justifying notability. Couldn't find any independent coverage of him. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent sources turn up in WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No independent coverage. Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:05, 4 May 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!} 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth, Indiana[edit]

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

The cited history consistently refers to the place as a "flag stop", and nothing on the topos or aerials serves to rebut this; indeed, the topos indicate this was likely the name of the junction of the two rail lines. I'm not sure why the history and Forte's PO site disagree about the date the post office closed, but it's clear that thee was never a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A post office is a central part of a community. Just from cursory googling, it seems like the town at the very least DID exist, but eventually was consumed by Logansport. Currently, there is a quarry named the Old Kenneth Stone Quarry about a mile from the GPS coordinates given in the article, as well as a small town or neighborhood clearly visible from aerial photography. The town certainly exists, though perhaps we should try to dig up more sources for it. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing this "small town or neighborhood". Could you give coordinates? Mangoe (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

40.758946, -86.458442

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is France Park. Mangoe (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: You are right, I have created a new article for the park that should meet the actual notability requirments. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only reference 5 gives anything approaching real information (apart from name and coordinates), and it inconsistently describes Kenneth either as a rail junction or a quarry. Either way, that's not enough to establish notability as per WP:GEOLAND. And a post office in the 19th century was not necessarily a central part of a community, as post offices could be just any sheltered place willing to accept and store mail (rural stores, farms, hotels, stagecoach inns, train stations, etc.). If more information is found we can reconsider, but there isn't much to go by. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one reference that is good refers to it as the the place known as kenneth in 1918, but phrases it such that I think that was a recent thing. In 1916, several kids were injured leaping from the train at Kenneth due to the fact it didn't stop. So we know it was indeed a flag stop, due to that. I don't know how that works, I just know the train clearly didn't stop regularly there. During that period there is indication the area is known as Kenneth, but no mention of anything indicating a town. No stores or other commerce, just the quarry. The train station would have a post office just because the quarry was there, and probably the quarry loaded stone there. The quarry was an attraction to local youth as late as 1957 when the sheriff rounded up some kids there.James.folsom (talk) 23:20, 30 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. I see a consensus for this meeting WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. It has not been 7 days yet but WP:SNOW applies here. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheri Caffaro[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. The first link on the reference which is the official website is a dead link. Secondly other link still doesn’t show any independent of the subject. Did my google search still can’t find any sign of notability of the subject neither any news independent of the subject. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Meligirl5 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fairly meets WP:NACTOR.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She still doesn’t meet WP:NACTOR. I understand you might have seen her as an actress who has appeared in multiple notable movies just because the movies are on Wikipedia also. But after checking some of the movies she appeared which are on Wikipedia I come to found out that some of the movies doesn’t meet WP:NFP neither WP:NFSOURCES. Note should be taken that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability.

To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage which of the movies fails including the actress not passing the general notability guideline. I’m pretty sure those movies would have been rejected if it was submitted through the WP:AFCREVIEW so therefore they will have to go through the WP:AFD.--Meligirl5 (talk) 12:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of newspaper coverage back in the 1970s when she was active. Meets the GNG at the very least. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources GoldenAgeFan1 found leaves little doubt to me. Skynxnex (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GoldenAgeFan1's sources, which demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GoldenAgeFan1's sources provide valuable insights into the notability of the topic. Waqar💬 17:20, 5 May 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!} 23:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Unprocessed Child[edit]

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

the topic of the article appears to be mostly unnotable and the entire article is unsourced, with the only outgoing links leading to a personal website, and the publishers website. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reviews in WP:LIBRARY. Gets a mention in [20], but nothing to substantiate that it was "influential". Jfire (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. The Unprocessed Child: Living Without School by Valerie Fitzenreiter does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria.
Cunard (talk) 09:15, 2 May 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. I don't see many policy-based arguments here but there is a clear consensus here to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hatirjheel Thana[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. This defined as the area within the jurisdiction of a particular police station, within the city of Dhaka. Not a "place" in a normal or SNG sense of the term. These type of districts are specifically excluded under NGEO. North8000 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Geography, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanas of Bangladesh are indeed notable because in Bangladesh we also regard them as place (be officially or unofficially). Thana is also administrative subdivision in Bangladesh, and in census report you can find thana based population data (Census tract, for example see Uttar Khan Thana). It proves that we refer thanas as "place" in general sense and it is indeed a legally recognized place. Also I found many sources about it, so it is only matter of verifying these sources you can find in google to see if they really are reliable or not. Mehedi Abedin 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no logical reason for Hatirjheel Thana, an administrative division of DNCC, to be deleted. A thana means an area which is controlled by a police station. Hatirjheel Thana being removed means that Motijheel Thana, Gulshan Thana, Dhanmondi Thana, Shahbagh Thana and Tejgaon Thana and all the others also has to be removed. Uss157 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The SNG specifically excludes the more abstract "set of lines on a map" : " Census tracts, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable.") For example, I live in a town that truly acknowledged to be presumed notable. I also live in many other legally defined districts....legally defined sets of lines on a map which are different than those of the town. A school district, a junior college district, a fire protection district, a mosquito control district, a precinct, a census tract, a water authority district, a park district. All of the rest of those are not presumed notable. If you asked me where I lived, the answer would never be telling you one of the latter. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keepshazid (আলাপ) 06:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ishtiak Abdullah (talk)

Keep per the above comments, see WP:NGEO. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shibata Takumi (fund manager)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Basic business person resume/CV. Of the 4 references, 3 are brief appointment announcements and one is a brief database type description. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Japan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep I wonder if North8000 did a WP:BEFORE search including sources in Japanese. We're talking about the former CEO of a company with $250 billion under management. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] (and yes, I realize some of these are short but keep in mind Japanese is a much more concise language. These results are just from the first couple of pages of results in a quick Google search btw. DCsansei (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about picking/pointing out 2 that cover him in depth. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 29 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) 18:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/withdraw The creator has increased it from 4 references up to 27 references. They've also asked me to take a look at those/the article as they are away on vacation/holidays. (IMO this mostly means analyzing all of the new references and finding the GNG-best ones per my request above)....happy to help someone enjoy their vacation/holidays and I did. Most of the best looking ones are behind paywalls, but as a minimum there are many near-GNG references by top tier sources. They have also expanded the article substantially with enclyclopedic content, also indicative of the addition of in-depth references. While I can't vouch for the most rigorous-interpretation GNG compliance, I have decided to switch to "keep/withdraw". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer theory[edit]

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

The article does not really focus on "Buffer theory" and only mentions it once. It would probably be best if this were merged or redirected to another article. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant. I could find plenty of sources discussing the buffer theory here and here. It is important to note that since there is another buffer theory in the fields of biology and chemistry, I had to include the keyword "migration" which weeds out most of the irrelevant sources. More could be found with different search terms. I can't also think of an article for this to redirect/merge into. The most relevant option would be a topic such as human migration or international migration, which are very general, so a main article on this topic is warranted in my current opinion. Aintabli (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 23 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) 18:50, 30 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. Daniel (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trés Hanley[edit]

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

Strong WP:COI vibes; the article creator has (mostly) only edited this article over a period of 14 years, also uploaded the two pictures as "own work" that are in the article. Sources are the subject's personal website and two sources that don't meet WP:RS. Lots of unsourced cruft. A search for more RS reveals lots of user-generated content, which fits the pattern. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed most of the cruft, including an uncited and frankly ridiculous assertion that she was the first American ever to play Polly in A Beggar's Opera. IBDB lists 7 productions on Broadway alone. Having gotten rid of all that, it appears that some of her roles were more than just bit parts, but if no one can find sufficient press coverage, she would not be considered Notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The production was 1993 at London's Canazzaro Park. Miss Hanley did TV interviews in which it was stated several times that she was the first american to play the role. The Director was Peter Benedict. Many of the parks productions are not listed in IBDB even to this day. Yet they are listed with the West End summer limited run productions. PleeUK (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several parks productions - Holland Park, Regents and Cannazaro London summer theatre associated with the West End in the 90s. Which roles were bit parts? Care to be specific? If you watch any of the shows that she has been in they are all featured roles or principle roles. Is this a legit or personal attempt on her work? PleeUK (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (1) do you have reliable secondary sources to back up these statements? (2) Do you have a WP:COI with Hanley? I ask because most of your edits are to this article, and you seem to have a knowledge of her career that sources do not. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all her works are also verifiable on IMDB. There are various article that were online that may be dead links now. I have met her in the past twice. But cannot say I am a friend. I do find Wiki confusing and so If I did not do something correct I apologize. PleeUK (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "cannot say I am a friend" - but in this edit, you say "You are looking to delete my friends page." Let's continue this tangent on your talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have said, I do not know her personally but I consider her a friend. I have followed her on social media and she is my friend there. You people here are very technical. Not all as familiar with the technical workings here.

You also make many false statements here saying her roles were bit parts when her name is on poster for movie mouth to mouth. And she has been lead or featured. Maybe you are experts on how to use wikipedia and I am not. I did apologize for it, but you do not have your facts on the actress correct. I was making an intervention on keep her page that's all. You do what you need to do. Thank you. PleeUK (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provide citations to the articles in your scrapbook, as described below and on your own Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PleeUK, Wikipedia does not accept IMDB as a WP:reliable source, because it is user-generated, so you need to cite reviews or articles from reputable publishers, like newspapers, about each production, show and film in which she appeared. You can't just say "she got press coverage" for something, you need to cite the exact article, author name, page number or URL, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scrap book with information but i cannot track it to the periodicals online today. This is from over 20 yrs ago not now all online. PleeUK (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be online. Here is how you can succeed: We need the name of the publication, the title and date of the article or book, the name of the author and the page number on which the information appeared. Post those things on the article's Talk page, and also type out the exact text from the article that verifies a statement made in Henley's article, so that I and other editors can see it, and if it does verify WP:NOTEWORTHY facts about her from a WP:RS, then I can add an appropriate cite to her Wikipedia entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say IMDB is user generated but not all most of it is supplied from the tv or film compamies. You can watch the shows and see these actors in the roles. So how is this not legit? PleeUK (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page, Fred Zepelin has posted the answer to your question. But be assured that it is not an acceptable source, and you will not succeed by arguing about that. Instead, follow the procedure that I outlined for you above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 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) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mika1h (talk) 06:59, 7 May 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mask Bloc[edit]

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

I don't believe these groups meet the notability criteria for organisations, there is limited in-depth coverage of the phenomena. This is too soon for this to be an article, and borderline promotional of the advocacy group. JeffUK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and COVID-19. JeffUK 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a group its more like an organizing tactic similar to Black Blocs and I don't see how its too soon as the covid pandemic is an ongoing situation and had an article as soon as it was named. The article is important information for an ongoing pandemic I don't see why it would be deleted. Wikibobdobbs (talk) 06:47, 9 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!} 06:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the suggestion of removing this article, and I'm confused as to how it can be justified, given that the movement is very much an active (and growing) one. I'm currently beginning research on this specific form of mutual aid as part of my postgraduate dissertation, and while the article needs to be cleaned up for consistent formatting, etc., there is no reason (other than a "political" objection to masking) to remove this at present, even if the information is under-reported. This is "grey literature," essentially. MAINShorebird (talk) 10:14, 21 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) 13:08, 23 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) 18:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cited sources are all passing mentions and I couldn't find anything on Google that was reliable and featured sustained coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This was already deleted by the time I made this reply. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 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 procedural keep‎. This is being discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Kashana Cauley (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashana Cauley[edit]

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

I am the article subject, I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and I wish for the article to be deleted Blacksun83 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 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 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:22, 30 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!} 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alun Rees[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 Welsh rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one match for Cardiff and 3 for Dragons, no significant coverage and unlikely to change. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Contributor892z (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with deletion, the article lacks sufficient coverage of the Welsh rugby player to meet notability guidelines. Waqar💬 18:54, 6 May 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!} 23:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derik Pretorius[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. I found this interview and not much else. JTtheOG (talk) 18:08, 30 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) 18:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than the interview provided, struggling to find anything more than passing mentions (although a lot of them). No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 30 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 speedy delete‎ per criterion G10. Wikipedia is not a commercial directory and not a free webhost. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suyash Kumar[edit]

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

clearly promotional and the references lead to a quora, a pinterest post, and guys personal website. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Travel and tourism, and India. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:31, 30 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 speedy deleted by GB Fan per G7 and again by BigHaz per G11. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhan Family[edit]

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

This article feels more like an advert for their YouTube channels, instead. It fails to meet WP:NYOUTUBE, WP:N and WP:GNG. It lacks notability and significant coverage. The editor also has a bit of a history of deleted articles within a couple of days. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as the article seems poorly written and is very clearly an advert Gaismagorm (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor writing is not a deletion criteria. Promotional content would be if it reaches WP:G11 intensity -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the sources in the article lead to 404 error pages. A WP:BEFORE search on 'Malhan Family' does not have enough reliable sources with significant coverage. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:14, 1 May 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!} 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skies & Scopes[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEBSITE; doesn't detail the site's "impact or historical significance", just the fact that it exists. Sources seem like churnalism based on pieces of the site's content, rather than being about the site itself. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Internet, and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG. It doesn't seem to have a significant coverage and it lacks reliable sources. You would hardly find a reliable secondary source on the subject, to even try to expand on it. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:01, 30 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!} 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Rock, Maine[edit]

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

Fails GNG and cites zero sources, I attempted to be bold and find a few reliable sources, but found none. Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Samoht27 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself says that it is a neighborhood in a city. This book says it's a neighborhood [33]. Even a plain google search get as many hits for gorham as white rock, and those tend to indicate its a neighborhood in Gorham. We generally delete these.James.folsom (talk) 20:59, 5 May 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 speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 as G11. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PRINCE ADEKUNLE AYORINDE EBENEZER[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. It doesn't have reliable sources that shows its notability. It fails to meet WP:N and WP:GNG, and does not need an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 16:11, 30 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.

Forgot to say that I tagged it for speedy deletion G11, just before the nom put the AFD page up. Not only promotional, but also completely fails notablity requirements JuniperChill (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) 29[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CODE n[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. written like ad copy. ltb d l (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by a user who is Working in corporate communications for GFT/CODE_n among others. Exactly the type of article that WP:NCORP is intended to prevent. Jfire (talk) 03:24, 1 May 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) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArtZuid[edit]

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

written like ad copy. fails general notability guideline. coverage is not enough for a comprehensive article. ltb d l (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added a few references. There is more than enough coverage for a comprehensive article. That said, I agree that the style and lay-out needs improvement. Will work on it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ruud, the GNG, and AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rudd Buite, has been improved and additional sources added. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 2 May 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) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in Columbia University[edit]

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

Created by a now banned sock. Mostly just a list of vaguely related incidents. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Ethnic groups, Education, Schools, Religion, Judaism, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have at least three things going on here: 1) Historic antisemitism at ivy league schools, which have plenty of RS'es 2) current protest events being alternatively branded as anti-Zionist or antisemitic, also covered in a lot of RS'es but as current events rather than historical reflection, and 3) commentaries connecting the two. I don't see how we can avoid covering this, even if the ultimate focus needs to be bigger than Columbia and the ultimate title needs to be different. An AfD may be a good place to start such a discussion, but I doubt it will end up resolved well here. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the protests themselves are already being covered at 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some parts of this page might be merged to 2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupation#Allegations_of_antisemitism. Or they might be used to cover the alleged recent wave of antisemitism in multiple US universities, not just Columbia. However, given the framing of the subject of the page (i.e. it even covers 20th century), it seems to stand as a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately given what's happened, an article like this needs to exist, despite the creation by a sock. WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why was there no discussion on the talk page before it was nominated for deletion? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by SNOW. The issue of quality may be valid, and the creation issue definitely is, but it meets GNG (whether or not some content needs to be merged somewhere else), and no reason for deletion exists. FortunateSons (talk) 11:07, 2 May 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 Statistical mechanics. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of statistical mechanics articles[edit]

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

This page is not about anything. Statistical mechanics is the article about statistical mechanics. (It's not even linked here!) Wikipedia is navigated by wikilinks and Wikipedia:Summary style, not by a table-of-contents as this article seems to be. The article is not useful. An overview of statistical mechanics should be in Statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an index, which navigates articles related to a field. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed to match convention. Might not exactly be an index, though: it's not alphabetical like a lot of the rest. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(@Johnjbarton posted a comment and then deleted it again, check the history) Forgot that moving was part of AFD discussions, figured that if the AFD hadn't been going on I would have just up and moved it anyways, because it seemed to fit. I can move it back and just vote for "Move to Index of statistical mechanics articles" instead if people feel like it's necessary. I figured if it survives it would probably move there anyways, and if it's deleted it doesn't matter what the name is. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles I deleted my comment because it was incorrect. I thought you had mistyped.

Your move is an improvement. I still think the article is pointless. We should put our energies into statistical mechanics. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, Mathematics, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also vote Keep. Large enough subject to have index for given the established pattern. Probably can be linked in the See Also of statistical mechanics: serves a minor purpose and doesn’t hurt anything. Does need to be alphabetized but not deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant to Statistical mechanics. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Category:Statistical mechanics shows how many things should be here. If there was a column listing year of discovery and other stats, would it be more useful? Or a description of what each thing is? Dream Focus 03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the index exactly redundant with Category:Statistical mechanics? If we add information to the index as you suggest aren't we creating a summary article exactly as I advocate we should in statistical mechanics? Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would all of those relevant entries fit in the other article? Dream Focus 04:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are they related to "statistical mechanics"? Then yes. Otherwise they don't belong in the index either. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the article in the middle of an AFD was also inappropriate; if someone wants to make it into an actual contextual list beyond just pointless bullet-pointed links, the original "List of" name was better. Still, they should be linked in the main article, Template:Statistical mechanics, Template:Statistical mechanics topics, and Category:Statistical mechanics as appropriate, but this serves no additional purpose so Delete or merge. Reywas92^Talk 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The columns and information I added shows its a valid navigational list, it allowing more information than the category does. Far more useful for people to find what they are looking for. Dream Focus 04:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make it a section in the main article then. You added empty columns, and a basic list of links this short doesn't need a standalone page. Otherwise draftify. Reywas92^Talk 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change as a bad edit (explanation in edit summary). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:SELFREF, and important topics can be covered in the main topic article much better than a list of random links can provide. Anyone who's interested can also make a sidebar for main topics if they want. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also changing my position to Delete or Merge, given the important links are probably already in Template:Statistical mechanics, etc. It wasn't really a very good index with only 20 articles anyways. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Right now the article is useless. That doesn't mean someone can't create something useful later on who is familiar with the topic. Dream Focus 18:04, 3 May 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. ^Complex/_Rational 00:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alaska Air Fuel Douglas C-54 crash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2024 Alaska Air Fuel Douglas C-54 crash

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

non Notability to aviation world due to small death count, outmatched by other incidents.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolzer3000 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 April 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 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I mean its a cargo jet, of course it only has a few on board but this is a huge airplane, it is very uncommon and has made a lot of coverage around the internet WP:Notability. This is just my opinion that this should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:402:704F:E038:5250:7DD4:7434 (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - It is not a jet it is a turboprop, i responded to your message on the talk page of this, the aircraft has no notability historically itself, i feel it falls under Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as a solely news worthy incident. Multiple talking head sources have covered it but no major sources other than USA Today have covered it as im seeing. Local news it what im usually finding and it did not make headlines nor national news. Lolzer3000 (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't vote on your own deletion request. Plus, sign the top so it's evident who posted this deletion request. GalacticOrbits (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Like the IP said above, it is uncommon for a plane like a Douglas C-54 to crash. i understand there is only two fatalities but its also a cargo jet carrying lots of stuff. Its one of those crashes that many people may think isn't notable, but is. WP:GNG WP:Notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeekyAviation (talk • contribs) 01:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are specific criteria for keeping or deleting aircraft accident pages but the most important are the consequences in safety regulations or aircraft manufacturing and the notability of the fatalities. In this case the accident fails to be notable in all of these categories. I should also mention that this specific crash is already included in the List of accidents and incidents involving the Douglas DC-4 so even if this page gets deleted the basic information of the accident will remain in wikipedia. Voceta (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE coverage only lasted ~3 days, the event criteria and WP:INDEPTH. Possibility of failing WP:LASTING. This is an old aircraft and not many of them are still flying today. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the laugh! GeekyAviation (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean "thanks for the laugh?" Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. The only vague element of notability is that there are not many operational C-54s left, but there were well over 1000 produced and there's absolutely nothing special about this particular airframe or this particular crash. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due To It's The Last DC-4 That Flying Commercially. Just Like How Boeing 707 In 2018? Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This aircraft was not the last DC-4 flying and anyhow, that wouldn't matter unless the event met the needed criterias.

Just Like How Boeing 707 In 2018?

Could you explain what you mean? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means EP-CCP, which was the last Boeing 707 in commercial service until it crashed in 2019. Nevertheless, the accident was not notable because it involved the last commercial 707. Likewise, this accident would not be notable solely because it involved the last commercial DC-4. As for the claim that this was the last commercial DC-4, the Douglas DC-4 article states that two DC-4s are operating with a charter airline in South Africa, but the sources are from 2014/15 and I've found no recent sources confirming that it is still the case. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, it is not unusual for 70-year-old aircraft to suffer engine failures and crash. No lasting coverage and fails WP:GNG. - ZLEA _T\^C 15:05, 3 May 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 14:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEYS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Honestly surprised because this is a Franken-FM for one of the largest media markets. Would’ve thought there’d been more coverage aside from mentions. Danubeball (talk) 20:58, 5 May 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 14:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Capperauld[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 1 May 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 14:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pickering (footballer)[edit]

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

AFC moved to mainspace by non-reviewer and is still not yet ready for mainspace. Two of the sources in the reference section are from Facebook. The article also provides little context other than that he was on some teams. Shadow311 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Shadow311 (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Philippines. Skynxnex (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I draftified the page to give the page creator more time to look for sources. The same user moved it back to the mainspace after adding a stats database and a Facebook link to the page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per @JTtheOG. Since the incubation time as a draft wasn't respected, it's up to deletion. Svartner (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the fact that it fails notability Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:35, 2 May 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 14:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanmoy Roy[edit]

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

This article does not have any reliable sources online, and any sources that I did search for have only come from Instagram, IMDB, and other blog sites. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Completely unsourced newly-created BLP. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CanonNi That isn't a criteria for speedy deletion, as far as I know. There's a credible claim of importance so not WP:A7 and it doesn't appear to have anything negative to make WP:G10 apply. WP:BLPPROD could have been used (although AFD is a fine choice too). Skynxnex (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially tagged the page for BLP PROD during NPR, which was later removed in this edit. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Sorry I missed the history. I still believe it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under A7 or G10; although perhaps G5 depending on the outcome of the SPI. Skynxnex (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage found in RS, either English or Bengali (তন্ময় রায়). He directed Sesh Chithi, for which notability per WP:NFILM is also unclear, though it had some notable actors in the cast. Sockpuppetry is also evident: see linked SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Skynxnex (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and a simple search does not display any result on the director. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing any coverage on this person.Hkkingg (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS references. We're also approaching a WP:SNOWBALL close at this rate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the others and possibly Wikipedia:Snowball clause also. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article lacks sources and fails to demonstrate the director's notability. Also agree with referring to WP:SNOW. Waqar💬 16:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From this edit the page creator may be engaging in block evasion. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:10, 5 May 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!} 12:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Dmello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources cited in the article for establishing notability (also listed on the talk page) are WP:SPONSORED and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The list includes articles from India Today, Outlook India, and ANI. Additionally, sources like The New Indian Express and Financial Express are suspected to be sponsored due to lack of authorship. This article was previously soft-deleted via AfD. Grabup (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Grabup (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Goa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being an organic farmer in the 21st Century doesn't get you notability. The sourcing reads as PR for the company, which isn't useful here. I don't see any sources we can use, nor do I find any that aren't PR'ish. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kuru removed the Sponsored citations, which I also wanted to remove but I did’t as I want to show others. Grabup (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was a weak delete originally, but after reading WP:NEWSORGINDIA and how both the Financial Express and The New Indian Express do not engage in any sort of analysis and read as PR-pieces (the Financial Express is particularly weak, it's mostly a WP:INTERVIEW which is not really independent on its own), I am happy seeing this article go unless significantly better sourcing (independence-wise and sigcov-wise) is found. Pilaz (talk) 09:20, 6 May 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 11:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GTO Wizard[edit]

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

No importance nor reliable sources; fails GNG and NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 30 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 11:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ummeda Ram Beniwal[edit]

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

He's an unelected poliical candidate and he doesn't really have coverage outside of being a candidate. Maria Gemmi (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Maria Gemmi (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article requires work and improvement, there are sources available that establish the politician's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. While much of the coverage understandably focuses on his candidacy, there are still a few sources on his life and political endeavor. With additional research, I think there is potential to expand the article further. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. I do not find reliable sources online with coverage on the politician himself. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:NPOL or have WP:SIGCOV outside of his political endeavor. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NPOL (not even WP:SIGCOV)..FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, He is very famous in political & media sphere in India.He is contesting from most hot seat of North India. Bajrang6691 (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Find us the reliable sources and I will the first to amend my vote FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: with only 2 sources, I vote for deletion.Rustypenguin (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article, like others recently created for candidates in the 2024 Indian General Election, utterly disregards WP:NPOL. Editors should know that being announced as a candidate and receiving some media coverage does not automatically confer notability. This echoes previous discussions in Afds regarding Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 16:42, 3 May 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 Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knightquest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think this meets WP:NFILM / WP:GNG. Kept at 2006 AfD, but standards were considerably lower then. Boleyn (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. There's a paragraph in this The Weekly Standard article: [34], doesn't count as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not kept (and I am no sage of SW lore), merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits (which I think should split out), as it has won an award. If more secondary sources can be found, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 15:03, 24 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) 09:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. There is very little on this. It gets a mention in an issue of Premiere magazine,[35] in a piece talking about approaches to franchise copyright infringement. It is also mentioned in this paper,[36] which looks at the phenomenon of fan films. No citations of that paper mind. Nothing here makes it notable in its own right, but the paper shows what is notable: fan films. This is held up as an interesting example of these. As such it really should be briefly covered on the cultural impact page, and it could also be mentioned on any other page about fan films. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:10, 30 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator who added several sources to the article, as well as links to the GScholar profiles of the editors. Unfortunately, none of the references are in-depth discussions of this journal and most are not independent either. The GScholar profiles strongly suggest that none of the editors are notable themselves, with the possible exception of one, but in any case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Law, and Medicine. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Saudi Arabia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to contest the proposed deletion of the Wikipedia page for "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health." My argument rests on several pillars of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically those related to academic journals (WP:NJournals) and the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Here are the key points supporting the retention of this page:

1. Significant Contribution and Scope: The journal was established during the critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to inform policymakers and appraise best research practices in the fields of medicine, law, and public health. Its interdisciplinary focus spans crucial areas such as epidemiology, mental health, emergency medicine, and medical ethics, underscoring its broad academic and practical relevance.

2. Indexing and Accessibility: "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" is indexed in WorldCat (OCLC No. 1427524091), affirming its accessibility and presence in significant academic repositories. This indexing supports the journal's credibility and accessibility to researchers globally, an important criterion under WP:NJournals.

3. Editorial Credibility: The editorial board comprises scholars who are actively contributing to their respective fields, as evidenced by their profiles on Google Scholar. This not only demonstrates the journal's commitment to high academic standards but also enriches its contributions to the academic community.

4. Publication of Notable Research: The journal has published significant research studies, such as those assessing patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and evaluating temperature measurement methods during the pandemic. These publications are indicative of the journal's active role in addressing timely and impactful health issues, aligning with WP:NJournals emphasis on the journal's influence in its field.

5. Adherence to Rigorous Academic Standards: It adheres to a stringent double-blind peer-review process, ensuring the integrity and quality of published research. This process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and supports the journal's standing in the academic community.

6. Future Directions and Potential for Growth: Plans to expand into cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence in healthcare and the legal implications of emerging medical technologies signal the journal's forward-thinking approach and potential for future impact on interdisciplinary research, fulfilling aspects of WP:GNG.

In light of the above points, it is clear that "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" meets both the specific notability standards set forth for academic journals and the general criteria under WP:GNG. The journal's contributions to its fields, its accessibility, and its rigorous editorial standards all argue against its deletion and for its further development and recognition on Wikipedia.hence: Keep. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm appreciative of your devotion to this subject but unfortunately, none of the above shows any notability and misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for acknowledging the efforts to improve the article. I understand your concerns regarding the notability standards as per WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. However, I would like to further substantiate the journal's significance by presenting detailed evidence, particularly focusing on the impact and recognition of its editorial board, which indirectly enhances the journal’s credibility:
- Editorial Board’s Scholarly Impact: The editors of "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" are not only experts in their fields but also highly cited scholars. For example, Sharafaldeen Bin Nafisah, the editor-in-chief, is well-recognized for his contributions to medical law and public health, with a substantial citation count reflecting his extensive influence. Similarly, Abdulaziz Boker, known for his work in medical education and ethics, and Jameel Abualenain, focused on emergency medicine and public health policy, have publications that are widely cited, indicating their prominent roles in shaping academic discourse. Other editors like Bandr Mzahim, Abdulrahman Ahmad Alzahrani, and Khaled Al-Surimi bring significant insights from emergency medicine, health informatics, and public health advancements, respectively, each with a strong citation record that underscores their scholarly impact. Almost all of the editors of this journal have more than 200+ citations individually.
- Independent Citations of Published Articles: Several articles published in the journal have been independently cited in other scholarly works, demonstrating the journal's role in contributing valuable knowledge to the field. For instance, studies on patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and the effectiveness of temperature measurements during the pandemic have been cited multiple times according to Google Scholar, indicating their impact on related research areas.
- Indexing and Academic Usage: Beyond just being listed in WorldCat, the journal's articles are referenced and used by academics and professionals, affirming its utility and relevance in the fields of medicine, law, and public health.
- Broad Academic Discourse and Future Directions: The journal’s commitment to expanding into interdisciplinary research involving emerging technologies like AI in healthcare represents its potential to influence future academic and practical applications, aligning with the WP:GNG which requires potential for significant coverage.
- A book called "The Art of Emergency Medicine: A Practical Approach for Emergency Physicians" has been published in 2021.This resource is crucial for assisting emergency healthcare practitioners in navigating the complex treatment of both adult and pediatric emergency cases.
In light of this additional information, I urge the community to reconsider the notability of the journal. The citation metrics and scholarly influence of its editorial board, combined with the independent citations of its articles, substantiate the journal's impact and relevance in its academic field, thus meeting the criteria set out in WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Their collective contributions ensure that the journal remains a critical resource in the fields of medicine, law, and public health, enhancing its notability and justifying its presence on Wikipedia. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that this journal has gotten any significant coverage. Nothing other than the creating editor's opinion of its importance suggest it meets WP:NJournals. Getting an OCLC number is no criterion at all, that just means that at least one library somewhere has it in its holdings; it's no more a sign of notability than an individual in the US having a social security number. The potential notability of some of its contributors in no way suggests that the journal has inherited that notability; see WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear fail of WP:NJOURNALS, per RK and per TJRC. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 16:45, 2 May 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!} 08:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Competitive Technology[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. every source in the article is primary. ltb d l (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Business, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Per @Ltbdl stance. It lacks notability and it is not yet ready for inclusion on Wikimedia. Let's give it a year and see. Fugabus (talk) 18:48, 24 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, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable secondary sources and it does not even meet notability guidelines per WP:GNG. It doesn't fit for an article. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 12:54, 30 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) 18:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sashi Kumar[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced. The only source is an interview with the subject. The article is also in a promotional tone, with words such as He likes reading and swimming and wishes he had more time for both.. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page and not much online to even establish notability. The journalist is not worthy of notice who has significant, interesting, or unusual achievement enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. RangersRus (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Changing my vote to keep after DavidIndia's edits with sources and cleanups. The sources help fulfill the notability gap. Shashi Kumar was the earliest Newscasters in English on national television and founded and launched Asianet, India’s first satellite TV channel in a regional language (Malayalam), and the country’s first statewide cable TV network in Kerala. RangersRus (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per official Asianet and AsianetNews, the founder of Asianet TV Conglomerale is Dr. Raji Menon (Sashi Kumar's uncle), Asianet was fully funded and promoted by Dr. Menon. Sashi Kumar worked in Asianet and had some swept equity received as a gift from his uncle (information from Asianet and Asianet News Wikipedia pages). As per Google information, something happened between them, Dr. Menon fired his nephew from Asianet and Sashi Kumar started defaming his uncle in media and telling that he was the founder of Asianet, using media resources affiliated with his College of Journalism. This is my understanding of situation. (have checked the list of references and removed few that didn't substantiated claims made in the article). Frezig (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Votes are given after examining sources. Do you have reliable sources for me to look at? RangersRus (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them:
In the year 2000, Dr. Raji Menon was presented the award of “Man of the Year" by the Government of Kerala, as the founder of Asianet “for contribution to the growth of Kerala and IT “.https://malayalam.oneindia.com/news/2001/03/29/biz-award.html, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E_CkEd8OEw

"Times of India" article https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/bpls-rajiv-buys-asianet/articleshow/223227.cms

The story how Asianet was born and about conflict between Dr.Menon and Sashi Kumar (article from “Mathrubhumi Weekly”, September 28 — October 4, 2008) https://archive.org/details/a-russian-malayalis-asian-experiments . You can see the translation into English here :https://medium.com/@rama_nair/a-russian-malayalis-asian-experiments-44966388015d

Asianet Archive: https://archive.org/details/beginning-of-asianet-tv-channel

Frezig (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind Asianet was Sashi Kumar's and when it came to finance, his uncle Raji Menon stepped in and became his partner. They both invested 5 Lakh each to start the channel Asianet. The channel became successful and then the tension started on stakes. Shashi Kumar sold his stake and stepped out after 10 years on Asianet. This is all in source. [37]. This is all notable work because the idea was his and he continued with other notable work after stepping down. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of the article is an acquaintance of Sashi Kumar and his family and her opinion is invariably biased. [38] All these fakes ( 10 lakhs to start a channel , when the transponder Ekran cost 4.5 million dollars etc those days ) about Sashi Kumar are evidently untrue . There are dependable resources with different information:

Idea of channel came from PTI General Manager Mr. P. Unnikrishnan [39] [40][41] [42]

100% of finances including hiring the transponder in Moscow, buying studio at Trivandrum ect. was fully funded by Dr. Menon. [43] [44] Frezig (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay attention! Today there were attempts to vandalise Asianet and Asianet News Wikipedia articles by adding there info about Sashi Kumar without references. Frezig (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added sources and cleaned up a bit. A bit more cleaning may help keep the article as the subject fulfills notability, being the first private founder of a satellite TV, chairman of Asian College of Journalism, which is quite popular and also with his enormouis reporting and articles for many decades. Editors may consider keeping it. Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cleaned a lot of unsourced information still the journalist does not have enough coverage online to establish notability or nothing worthy of notice. A lot of references don't show enough coverage of the journalist. Harrysigma (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Harrysigma. But Frezig raised an important side of the subject. Will go with the decision of the editors who will take a final call on the AfD. thanks! Davidindia (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Further sources:[45][46][47] Fwiw, several hits in this book:[48] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like self promoted article. Also today were attempts to vandalise Asianet and Asianet News Wikipedia articles by adding there info about Sashi Kumar without references. Frezig (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are more than enough sources which give in depth coverage to establish the notability of the person according to WP:NBIO. MrMkG (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is the director of Kaya Taran which won the Aravindan Puraskaram award and thus this subject passes WP:DIRECTOR. He has also acted in many different movies. - SUN EYE 1 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 6 May 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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln[edit]

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

This congregation has no notability. St Helen's Church, Lincoln is grade II* listed and rightly has a separate article; Holy Cross Church has no claim to notability, and nor does the joint congregation which worships at the two churches. A merge proposal template was removed from the St Helen's article with no explanation, after a brief discussion of the proposed merge (propose, oppose from creator of both the articles, one further comment from proposer). I considered just redirecting this article to St Helen's but bring it here to get further eyes on the discussion. A Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln would be my preferred outcome from this AfD. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. PamD 07:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to St Helen's Church, Lincoln or just redirect. There is mergeable content. The congregation are not notable for an article, per nom., but the joint use of this and another church by a single congregation is worth mention on the merge target page - it is the current use of this church. It is a small merge, but a merge nonetheless. The merge discussion has the page creator arguing for the notability of Holy Cross. I don't think those arguments pass muster, but they are not a reason to keep this page which is specifically about the joint congregation. A Holy Cross church article could be created although my view is that it would not meet notability requirements and should not be attempted without sufficient reliable secondary sourcing. I didn't see where the merge header was removed, but it clearly lacked visibility, so the discussion here is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The article on St Helen's already includes "The church is joined with the nearby Holy Cross Church as the "Congregation of Holy Cross and St Helen's".", with a link to the parish website. Is that enough? The merge header was removed earlier today with the uninformative edit summary "Slight tweaks". PamD 09:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see it now. Yes, on the basis the information is already there, I have unbolded my merge and bolded redirect instead in this edit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree the two churches are linked and can be covered in St Helen's Church, Lincoln. There isn't a church called Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, so that title as a redirect may be of limited use. For readers to find content on Holy Cross it would need a redirect page, titled "Holy Cross Church, Boultham" or such like. The main discussion point regarding a merge is whether there should be an infobox for each church, just for one of the churches or a combined one. Found brief local news reports on Holy Cross's opening in 1940, which can be used for additional factual content. None of the references currently in the article count towards notability and so far I haven't found feature length coverage. Rupples (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that one article is sufficient to cover both churches however it is accomplished. Esemgee (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Holy Cross church needs to be covered at all, except perhaps in a list of churches in Lincoln. It appears to have no claim to notability. PamD 13:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cross is mentioned in Boultham and Wikiproject UKGEOG content guidelines for settlements say to note churches within their locality WP:UKTOWNS#Religious sites — it doesn't state the church has to be notable for inclusion. Rupples (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Churches mentioned in settlement articles don't have to have their own article. Maybe this article should be renamed and redirected to St Helen's Church. Esemgee (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Take it you mean 'redirect' rather than 'article' as the closing word in the first sentence?~~ Yes, agree with a retitle, and redirect to St Helen's but I've seen an admin state not to do this before the AfD closes. Suppose we'd recommend redirect under the current title then rename the redirect page. Rupples (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC). Strike, maybe misread. Rupples (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Notability not established for this church. The title of this article "Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln" is inaccurate and misleading. It leads one to think it's the name of a single church building. The website for the church is Boulton Parish and the home page begins The Congregation at Holy Cross and St. Helen's. We already have an article St Helen's Church, Lincoln where reliably sourced detail on Holy Cross can be added. It's simpler to delete this, add a section to St Helen's about Holy Cross and create a redirect page, (suggest Holy Cross, Boultham) than redirect this article's rather nonsensical title. Rupples (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples There's already a redirect, with categories, at Holy Cross Church, Lincoln, and that is listed in the dab page at Holy Cross Church#United Kingdom. OK, have now created Holy Cross Church, Boultham as a second redirect. Both currently pointing to this article, Holy Cross and St Helen's Church, Lincoln, but if this is deleted or redirected they should both target St Helen's Church, Lincoln where the church gets a mention. PamD 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to one name, one place, one church, one body. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln, which bizarrely isn't even linked in the article. If there is anything worth merging, go ahead and save that bit, suitably cited, but apart from St Helen's there doesn't seem to be anything here worthy of note. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St Helen's Church, Lincoln. Changing from delete to redirect as a new, more aptly named redirect has been created. Doesn't require a formal merge as there's so little to merge that any reliably sourced content can be added to the redirect target separately, should anyone feel inclined. A separate heading is warranted for Holy Cross in the St Helen's article as reading through it's starting to get confusing which church the text relates to. There is further relevant material that can be added about Holy Cross, though insufficient coverage to establish notability. In any case, as the churches are linked it is better for context the two are combined in the article for the church whose notability is proven. Rupples (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rupples and Chiswick Chap. Mertbiol (talk) 18:35, 30 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!} 12:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lette[edit]

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

Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 4 May 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) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon[edit]

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

Article doesn't meet wp:gng What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point. No secondary sources cover this topic in depth. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before nominating the article for deletion, Big Money Threepwood deleted a list of sources that an earlier edit summary explained "can be used to expand the page". Also, I added the shortened note citations to "Thomas (2016)" that exist on the article and appear to have forgotten to actually add the book to the sources list: John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction (CPT Press, 2016). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are plenty of sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places, I am not seeing the sort of significant coverage in independent sources which would indicate stand-alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike several other since-deleted articles on that amounted to trivia meaningfully sourceable only to the Book of Mormon, the Waters of Mormon's role as the setting of the Book of Mormon's expression of what Latter-day Saints consider their baptismal covenant has made it the subject of textual study and cultural reception of which there is coverage (Stott's identification of an intertext with Joseph Bellamy's preaching; Bolton connecting it to Anabaptism; Whitley's coverage of its appearance in poetry). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:14, 29 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!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close nomination -- This was nominated by a now-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bogus nomination. X (talk) 12:49, 3 May 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 radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZPY-LP[edit]

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

Defunct low-power station. No secondary sources at all. No significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, Companies, and Oklahoma. AusLondonder (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through google yields results that boil down to either listening to the station or information already included in the article. mwwv (converse) 12:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct where it is already listed as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct: this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" still in place in this topic area as late as 2020 (a year before the 2021 RfC that made it clear that GNG and its requirements for significant coverage are the inclusion barometer). Outright deletion is not being outright opposed either; there simply isn't much to retain here, and it has only ever been sourced to the FCC database (which only establishes potential existence, which is neither notability nor the establishment of same). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 27 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!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of radio stations in Oklahoma#Defunct: Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 4 May 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Filiga[edit]

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

His first grade career was a mere 11 minutes in total. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Australia, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has several secondary sources, and by the looks of what is written, he went on to have a career in Australia's second tier. Don't think failing in the NRL is sounds to be classEd as not notable. Article could probably be expanded. Mn1548 (talk) 13:11, 23 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!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lots of dead links in the sources which needs to be fixed, but they do establish WP:SPORTSCRIT. His name is even in the headline of one of the ones that still works. Article needs a cleanup and an update. David Palmer aka cloventt (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: suggest that his failure at NRL is actually a notable event, which meets significant coverage threshold. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:56, 2 May 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 George Watsky. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardboard Castles[edit]

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

There's an AllMusic review, and this book suggests the album charted in the US (if i'm reading it correctly, that is), but beyond that this album doesn't look particularly notable. Unless more is found, I would redirect this to the artist's page. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:39, 23 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!} 06:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Watsky as an WP:ATD per nom. ✗plicit 04:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support this redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:08, 7 May 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 Webster University#Campus. I see a general consensus to Redirect and no additional support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Webster University campus locations[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic content per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Also fails WP:NLIST. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 23 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!} 06:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Webster University#Campus. If it doesn't exist there, merge the citation so the source of the full list is still available to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a redirect, it's not a plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
/agree but redirects are cheap. // Timothy :: talk 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Redirects are cheap. Fails NLIST and CLN as a stand alone list. List entirely sourced to a single page on the subject website. // Timothy :: talk 06:51, 2 May 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!} 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAST-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several references, most offline to NewsBank (Duluth paper is some of the hardest to obtain anywhere — that can be said of any Forum Communications paper!). There is SIGCOV of its very short-lived news operation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Each of the sources added by Sammi provide the WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More review of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 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) 06:15, 30 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 programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabado Barkada[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009 but was actually unreferenced since 2006. No good hits on GNews and GBooks. GNews archives only turned out two ads related to it. Alternatively, Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 9 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!} 03:12, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 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) 06:15, 30 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. No consensus to delete after one month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Colorado Physical Therapy Program[edit]

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

Despite being a large article, it appears to have been mostly edited by COI editors and contains original research that isn't backed up by sources. The far majority of references are simply from the university's website, and as such notability isn't proven due to the lack of outside sourcing. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, United States of America, and Colorado. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - and selectively merge any content with reliable independent sources to University of Colorado School of Medicine. As the nominating editor stated, article seems promo and lacks secondary sources. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Eejit43, thank you for the valuable feedback! I am presently retrieving outside sources to backup the information presented in this article. I am aware of the problem of promotion of interests on WP and how many hide their identity. My hope is that being transparent will help, along with the pending external citations that will demonstrate impact and notability both locally and nationally. Mikepascoe (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

An initial draft of the article had 31 cuanschutz.edu (internal) sources + 23 external (independent) sources = 54 total.
The present version now has 19 internal + 42 external source = 61 total.
The percentage of sources from the university website (Eejit43's original comment) has decreased from 57% to 31%.
Further improvements can be made, thank you for your continued review

Mikepascoe (talk) 14:49, 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!} 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really seeing any SIGCOV from secondary sources. A selective merge might still be the best way forward.-KH-1 (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, could you please explain what a selective merge is and how this is a good way forward?

I'm also not sure how to satisfy the SIGCOV (significant coverage?) requirement. There are several external sources discussing the Program now from refutable sources. Do you have an example of a source that meets SIGCOV from other Wikipedia articles?

Thank you very much! Mikepascoe (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. It would also help if an editor(s) would address User:Mikepascoe's valid questions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 23 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) 06:14, 30 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 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Maree[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 Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rugby League footballer who played for Lebanon at the Rugby League World. 8 sources.Fleets (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources has to be addressed. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads is an WP:ATD. On that page, one will find his club and cap count at the time (I don't know why rugby doesn't put DoB as well, like football squads). @JTtheOG, note that several other of the Lebanese 2021 World Cup pages are of the exact same build as Josh Maree. Geschichte (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Played in a team that got to a WC QF, nothing is written about his club career, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 9 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!} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. No evidence of the requisite GNG coverage, merely playing in some league does not meet any notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:21, 23 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) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2021 Men's Rugby League World Cup squads. No standalone notability and no established first grade career. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Participation-based athlete criteria, which both keep !votes are based on, were deprecated 2 years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 06:19, 7 May 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 Beaverton, Oregon#Shopping. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progress Ridge Town Square[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A "lifestyle center"/ small mall with 30 stores. Of the two references, one is a database type listing and the other is about a nearby trail and does not even mention it. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beaverton, Oregon#Shopping (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 29 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) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very generic shopping center with no outstanding anchor outside AMC. Nate • (chatter) 16:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the mall is not notable. I find a redirect to be a good alternative to deletion, particularly since the mall is already mentioned in the proposed target article (Beaverton, Oregon#Shopping). Cunard (talk) 09:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill shopping center with just the usual coverage. I am not opposed to a redirect in such cases. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 8 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarik Minasyan[edit]

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

I cannot find too much info on him in English or Armenian (I copy pasted his name in Armenian in Google). He seems to be an elected official but per WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political officedoes not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. " Shinadamina (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Armenia. Shinadamina (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A member of parliament is a clear WP:NPOL#1 pass, I would encourage the nominator to read the guideline more thoroughly. There are additional sources at the hy.wp article. Curbon7 (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with some more content but nom has misunderstood WP:POLITICIAN. An "elected local official" refers to a local councillor, not a member of the national parliament. In fact, members of national legislatures are presumed notable per WP:POLITICIAN. AusLondonder (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 13:49, 30 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McDermott[edit]

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

Unreferenced and fails WP:PROF. Uhooep (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there any consensus on whether the National Teaching Fellowship meets any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC?

Criterion 2 is "has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". (Emphasis mine.)

Criterion 3 is "has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor".

Times Higher Education reports McDermott as a National Teaching Fellow, "Fifty-five people working in universities have been named as the latest winners of the sector’s top honour for teaching and learning".^[1]

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "National Teaching Fellows of 2015 are named". Times Higher Education (THE). 2015-06-11. Retrieved 2024-04-30.

I make the argument below that it is at least a contribution under C4 (significant contributions to higher education) even if the community does not choose to call it a C3 (scholarly society), which I would. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the presumption that the aforementioned National Teaching Fellowship does, in fact, qualify as a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society." I am unfamiliar with this fellowship though, and it might not meet the mark. If consensus is reached that it is not sufficient to meet these criteria, then I will change to Delete, as this person's notability seems to ride on this award. Updating to Keep based on David Eppstein's discovery of the reviews, and the Design Week profile. nf utvol (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Reviews, towards a possible pass of WP:NAUTHOR, include [49][50]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, setting aside the question of whether the fellowship is significant. I found four reviews of two of her (many!) design books and added them to the article. Note that another book, Feel-Bad Postfeminism: Impasse, Resilience and Female Subjectivity in Popular Culture, is not hers: it's by a different Catherine McDermott, a lecturer of English at Manchester Metropolitan University. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR (Eppstein's argument) and also per WP:PROF: British-full professor at a well-regarded institution is at the level that are notable at a research level; the National Teaching Fellowship is sufficiently selective to count strongly towards a C4 (contributions to higher education) or C3 notability. About half the books are from presses that are selective in their publications. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Design historian Professor Catherine McDermott is one of design’s most prominent academics. I know nothing about design but I'm assuming the authors of this article in Design Week probably do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good find @Necrothesp RE: the Design Week article. That moves me from neutral to keep. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:30, 3 May 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Armour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any independent sources with notable mention, there is a brief mention of him in a recent Al Jazeera live news update feed, but its trivial and still does not establish notability Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 05:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I somehow missed the first AfD—I'd like for this to just be speedily closed. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 05:06, 30 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 04:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Shah[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG as well as WP:FILMMAKER. One source for all 3 claims; two sentences; four images; zero facial indicia of significance or importance. This looks like a vanity piece. JFHJr (㊟) 04:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good catch! this is an AUTOBIO created by a SPA Zahirdaud24 (talk · contribs), clearly fails to meet WP:N --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This fresh catch belongs to Crosji, who brought this tuna to WP:BLPN, unfortunately the wrong venue. I just canned and shipped it here. Thanks, Crosji! JFHJr (㊟) 20:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tasted fantastic! Appreciate the tuna, thanks @Crosji: —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. If there are more photos than actual written information in the article then it probably isn't noteworthy in the first place. Photos are probably to make the subject seem more notable than they actually are. Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree. The brevity of the article precludes any critique regarding its quality. --Crosji (talk) 17:36, 30 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 04:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarolím Antal[edit]

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

nonnotable "expert on social etiquette, state and diplomatic protocol", neglected and unused article. - Altenmann >talk 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete expression of notability not given in article and quick searches through the tools did not find sources/citations/etc. that come close to a typical WP:PROF, Author, or GNG. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with only 1 source and nothing else found, I vote for deletion.Rustypenguin (talk) 09:00, 3 May 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 04:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Street-basketball Foundation[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for organisations. Close to G11-worthy. I'm stunned this article has managed to stick around in this state since 2006 and even gets a link in Index of Australia-related articles. Only bringing to AfD since it does get a paragraph in the Sydney Morning Herald The only other sources I found were short pieces in local newspapers that fail WP:AUD. I'm happy to email full text to anyone who is interested, but they really weren't adequate. – Teratix ₵ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Australia. – Teratix ₵ 03:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. close to no presence in the internets. - Altenmann >talk 03:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources don't establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced, in any case fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 6 May 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throne (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, appears not notable BoraVoro (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yet to match the social media networking site’s guidelines. For now its DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarshalDhotre06 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 22 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) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

del - nothing but adverts. - Altenmann >talk 03:36, 30 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 04:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wirth (cyclist)[edit]

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

lugnuts stub. fails notability guidelines for cyclists. ltb d l (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Switzerland. ltb d l (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the German Wikipedia, he was a Swiss national champion in cycling and there's several offline sources which are referenced. Those should be checked, and also one should check Swiss newspaper archives, as it seems quite likely a nation's national cycling champion would be covered there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if the Swiss Cycling Association is independent though? Let'srun (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... true. I was also just able to find what appears to be an online Swiss newspaper archive -- see here. I can't figure out how to get it to work, though... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I narrowed down the search for you: {"Max Wirth" AND (Rad OR Velo)} and a little wither search: {"Max Wirth" AND (Rad* OR Velo*)} Maybe you'll find a good source. I have no time to do the search. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 19:55, 24 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) 10:36, 22 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) 03:08, 30 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice d'Hirson[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltb d l (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. ltb d l (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know "Who was she?" "Was she fact or fiction?". PamD 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. "The Accursed Kings" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more irrelevant comment. The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson. This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the redirect. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:02, 8 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!} 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:17, 22 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) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable presence in fiction and got reasonable coverage as fictional character regardless obscurity in flesh. - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. No sources provided by keep votes, which just boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources, let alone sources with indepth content about subject. // Timothy :: talk 03:44, 2 May 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 Islamic fundamentalism in Iran. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran[edit]

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

Clear content fork, likely POV fork (trying to use Islamic Republic in the title as scare words). Article is a less-detailed overview of the article Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and confusingly shares a functionally identical title.

Not worth considering merging as the article exclusively cites encyclopedia entries and a couple American conservative media sources, nowhere near as rigorous as the existing article that already covers this topic. Dan • ✉ 04:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Iran. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! Here's a revised and more formal version of the sentence:

Keep. Islamic fundamentalism in Iran boasts a history spanning centuries. This article primarily focuses on the period following the 1979 revolution, which led to the establishment of Iran's first Islamic state. Integrating this with the main article would result in disproportionate emphasis. The term 'scare word' is unclear; could you elucidate your argument? The term in the title of article refers to the current government's practice of an Islamic state, its official name is also Islamic Republic. Should you have any critiques regarding the title, we can explore alternative designations such as 'Fundamentalism in Post-Revolution Iran.' It is noteworthy that the majority of this article's content is not found in the main article, as it concentrates on the emergence of state-sponsored fundamentalism and its systematic implementation. Regarding the conservative source to which you allude, could you please specify? The sources utilized are balanced, including esteemed historical references such as Britannica." I'm also expanding the article. The work hasn't finished yet. 3000MAX (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were trying to make an article only covering post-Revolutionary Iran and I apologize for thinking the title was a use of non-neutral language. However, it should be noted that the already-existing article is already almost entirely about post-Revolution Iran. The lead of the main article immediately discusses how "Islamic fundamentalism" in the country is primarily connected with Khomeini, and only discusses pre-Revolution Iran in the "History" section.

I'll refrain from using the term "main article" to refer to Islamic fundamentalism in Iran as I do see now that the two articles discuss completely different topics despite the similar names. The older article is about the religious intellectual movement, and discusses theology and the political relationship between the clergy and the state. This new article is primarily listing certain actions of the state that it justifies via Islam. This shows a deeper issue: this article doesn't really discuss Islamic fundamentalism at all. Islamic fundamentalism is a theological doctrine and should be discussed in an article on theological movements (as it is in Islamic fundamentalism in Iran) and isn't really an applicable term for discussing state media censorship. Notably, none of the sources cited in this article use the term "fundamentalism" anywhere (besides of course the referenced Britannica definition of the term). Since none of the sources cited discuss the actions of the state as "Islamic fundamentalism" it seems this article is almost entirely synthesis trying to connect conservative policies to Islam, rather than just a content fork. Some of the connections to Islam fail to even appear to materialize in the prose: for instance, These ministries regulate university curricula, faculty appointments, and student admissions, ensuring alignment with Islamic values is vague and doesn't explain what part of the education might be Islamic. Enforcement of Persian-language studies has no connection to Islam, which is a famously Arabic-focused religion, and is more in line with discussion of Iranian nationalism.

Also on sources: I took issue with citing to The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which as a political think tank is non-neutral in discussion of Iran.[51][52][53] The Guardian article cited fails verification – there's nothing about ethnolinguistic minorities in that article. Dan • ✉ 05:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge it into Islamic fundamentalism in Iran, seems like a completely unnecessary fork, not sure how it would falter with WP:BALANCE as the creator of the page mentioned. Noorullah (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding comment: The content shouldn't differ as Dan was mentioning earlier between both pages, they should go over the same topic, meaning the Islamic fundamentalism in Iran does generally need a cleanup as well.. Noorullah (talk) 05:59, 28 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) 03:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redundancy of title. "Islamic fundamentalism in Islamic Republic of Iran". What other kind of fundamentalism could there be in Iran, except Islamic? — Maile (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 12:49, 8 May 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 04:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeher-e-Ishq[edit]

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

Film that started filming in 2015 and has yet to be released. Cannot find sources for it after 2017 and anything that exists do not show how this meets WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 30 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 04:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surya Group of Institutions[edit]

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

Appears to be a private school, needing a higher level of sourcing than typically asked for in chartered colleges & universities. Relatively new, so no historical notability and no N:ORG level sourcing found. Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Star Mississippi 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quick overlook, one source on the page and is not independent or secondary. Per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 14:03, 30 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 04:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Crossing, Indiana[edit]

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

Another bit of an oddity in that it shows up rather late (1960s), but it's not a suburban development or anything like that. As far as I can tell, it is the road of that name crossing the railroad tracks, though I can't get anything that says that. Even before I took steps to exclude the shopping center on the outskirts of Indianapolis, hits were down in the clickbait range; most are real estate hits, especially for an "at Perry Crossing" complex which is actually a mile or so west. Book hits are all either fed gazetteer stuff, other fed pubs, or chance juxtapositions. Maybe this is a locale, but I have nothing. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it doesn't appear on maps until the 60s, it was likely an informal local term that somehow got added to a map, then into GNIS, then here, where we have invented a nonexistent community. Nothing found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local papers leave it clear this just a road called "Perry's Crossing". It doesn't actually cross the tracks, because that road on the other side is a different later road. It does however cross Silver Creek, and is probably named for whoever owned the land that the crossing was on. Way back, when Some guy with the last name Perry probably built a toll bridge across the creek.James.folsom (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not a community. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:36, 7 May 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. The community has been clear that the number of caps is not a replacement for the GNG or a SNG. Because of this, I gave nearly no weight to arguments about the number of matches the subject has been in. I also did not give weight to the IP's comment that this fell into the realm of PROMO. AfD is not a replacement for cleanup. With both of those in mind, I see a weak consensus to delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wrestling, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I have now added several reliable secondary sources to the article, some that are generally reliable (Sydney Morning Herald) and some that are considered industry-specific reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter), that help confirm the notability of the subject. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.

Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [54] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [55] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [56] is still unreliable. Source 4 [57] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [58] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [59] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [71] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second source, Slam! Wrestling, is a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

Cagematch.net is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for match results, which is what it's being used for.

You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[72][73] Impact/TNA,[74] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[75] and ROH.[76] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[77] her championships and titles,[78] and PWI rankings.[79] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
  
  As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
  
  Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Per WP:SIGCOV
    - Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
      
      McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
      
      Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
      
      Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
      
      The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[80] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.
      
      This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [81] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![82], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
      
      Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
      
      Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.
      
      I've also now added both a 2017 interview conducted by Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer Newsletter to the article as well as a 2019 interview conducted by Mike Sempervive also of Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Alvarez is notable, the platform is notable and the interviews are significant coverage. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.
        
        ~~Please show me a guideline which states this.~~ WP:Youtube and Wikipedia:Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as PBS and CNN. Belle Delphine, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.
        
        The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .
        
        It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.
        
        a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability
        
        No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is WP:NPA via WP:BLP. It openly discourages Youtube videos in combination with WP:YOUTUBE unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.

This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No - WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! Cool! Thanks! 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please weigh in on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has had 183 matches that were broadcast (on livestream, TV, PPV, etc). That is a significant volume of work in the public eye. McPhail (talk) 09:55, 30 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 04:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pala Tibetan War[edit]

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

To begin with, there are no reliable sources that mention a war between the Pala dynasty of Bengal and the Tibetans. Neither has any historian referred to it as the "Pala Tibetan War" nor have they mentioned such a conflict in any way.
The background section of the article fails to address the relationship between the Palas and Tibetans. Additionally, the WP:SYNTH has been consistently disregarded throughout the entire article, including the background section. Moreover, sources have been presented suggesting the submission of the Pala ruler to the Tibetans, but there is also a source provided that contradicts this claim.
The section "Dharmapala's Conflict with Tibetans" doesn't actually discuss the conflict between the Palas and Tibetans; rather, it focuses on Dharmapala's victory against the Nepalese forces. This marks the first instance of major synthesis of sources in the article. The background section deliberately states that Nepal was under Tibetan suzerainty. Therefore, the editor synthesized that the conflict between Nepal and the Palas was distorted into the "Pala Tibetan War," which is nonsensical as it combines two distinct contexts. For instance, if one source states that "X is a vassal of Y," and another source mentions that an entity called "Z successfully campaigns against X", an original research is conducted, leading to the conclusion that "Z defeated Y", despite Y's lack of involvement.
The pattern continues in the section "Devapala's Conflict with Tibetans," where synthesis of sources occurs, often with poorly sourced content, including reliance on primary records. Similar to Dharmapala, Devapala is depicted as engaging in a war with the Nepalese, which is then distorted into a conflict with the Tibetans. The article contains sparse and scattered information, especially if we disregard the synthesis part, where the context is barely mentioned in the sources and consists of scattered lines, primarily based on Pala dynasty's primary records. Moreover, none of the Tibetan or Chinese records mention any conflict between the Tibetans and the Pala dynasty. Fails WP:GNG, and the article is completely built on WP:OR, including the title. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Imperial ^[AFCND] 07:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood the article. There are reliable and contemporary sources that point to a conflict between the Palas and Tibetans. Tibetan records specifically mention a war with the Pala Empire. The Pala records also mention conflicts with Tibetans. Furthermore, Dharmapāla's contemporaneous records indicate that he seized the throne of Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. Even the Nepali tradition states that Dharmapāla had subjugated Nepal. The conflict between Dharmapāla and Tibetans is supported by Devapāla's inscriptions.
The same sources mention the submission of Palas and exaggeration of Tibetans. The sources cited, which state that the Pala Empire was subjugated by the Tibetans, tells that Tibetan claims are exaggerated as they lack proof, so there is no contradiction with WP:SYNTH.
Still, it is incongruent with the Tibetans as the Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, if this is the sole flaw in the article, it can be resolved by altering the title to 'Pala-Nepalese conflict'. Thus, I request that instead of discarding the article, the title be changed to 'Pala-Nepalese war'.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend reading WP:SYNTH. "Contradiction with WP:SYNTH"? Coming to first point, none of the sources cited here, directs to a Tibetan source, and even lacks scattered lines in 21st century, from both sides. Seizing the throne from Nepal neither mentioned in the article. However, even if it is present in WP:RS, that gives noone the right display that as "Pala Tibetan War". The second point doesn't make any sense to me. The third point actually points out how the article entirely fails. It cannot be changed as "Pala–Nepalese War", as the attempt to show Tibetians as belligerents have failed here. I am sorry, but WP:MILHIST articles doesn't suit for you as two of such articles created by you, this and Draft:Pala invasion of Sindh, both are miserably made upon original research. Now, the suggestion to move it to "Pala–Nepalese War", I would oppose it because it too fails WP:GNG, with some scattered lines mentioned in some sources. As it is already covered in the article of Dharmapala and Devapala, there is no need for a seperate article. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some issues in the article, but I still request for the article to be moved into the draft space instead of deleting it. Allow time and space for its improvement until it is ready for main space. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nepal and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like what the article is saying is:

Dharampala of Pala dynasty may have conquered Nepal.
But Nepal was likely under Tibet's control around that time.
So, there must have been a war that won the Palas Nepal from the Tibetans.

I am seeing too many ifs, buts and maybes. But is that what the article is saying? If so, exactly which of those premises are we reasonably sure of? Does the conclusion follow? And isn't the conclusion too weak anyway to present at "Pala-Tibet war" as though it were fact? Looks to me like the author is conjecturing the existence of a war based on circumstantial evidence. That's no way to write a Wikipedia article. There are other ways to gain territory. If you have a big enough force, you may walk in unopposed. The previous occupying force may have withdrawn before the next conquerors got there. There may have been dialogue and treaty to cede control in exchange of something else. Assuming, Nepal was even under Tibetan control, and assuming Nepal was even conquered by the Palas. Please tell me we are basing our article on better evidence than that, ideally providing freely accessible sources to support your argument. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim. Some sources suggest that Nepal was under the suzerainty of Tibet, while others indicate that Nepal was conquered by the Palas. Therefore, the author fabricated a narrative by the synthesis of these sources and invented a non-existent conflict known as the "Pala Tibetan War." Imperial ^[AFCND] 01:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The author in the above comment says that The Palas conquered Nepal from the Tibetan Empire. However, none of the cited sources support this claim." ??

The statement that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule is not supported by any sources cited. Specifically, the fifth, sixth, seventh, and ninth sources cited suggest that Nepal was indeed under Tibetan control and was subsequently conquered by the Pala Empire. Additionally, there are no sources indicating that Nepal was not under Tibetan rule when palas conquered them.
The Pala Empire fought not only in Nepal and the Himalayas, but also in Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal [Mentioned in the article with Reliable Sources]. This is enough to showcase the Pala Tibetan Wars or the Pala Tibetan Conflicts.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, combining two sources to make a conclusion, thats what you did, and we call it WP:SYNTH, which is not allowed here. Imperial ^[AFCND] 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess you don't know what WP:SYNTH is, do you? The article does not solely focus on the conquest of Nepal by the Palas against the Tibetans. It also covers the conflicts and clashes between the Pala Empire and the Tibetan Empire in Nepal, the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal. The previous sentence was a bit blunt, but you seems to be focused on only Nepal ignoring everything else in the article

It would be better to provide a more inclusive perspective on the topic and be more open to different points of view. Good luck trying to find a logical and valid reason to remove the article, Thanks. Based Kashmiri (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you stated that the article was solely focused on Palas conquering Nepal, and you claimed that no source mentioned that Nepal was part of the Tibetan Empire, however, every source discussing that topic indicates that Nepal was indeed under the control of the Tibetans.
The fact that you have only been focusing on Nepal is evident, as you stated that the article was solely concerned with the conquests of that particular territory. However, considering that the article also covers their battles in the Himalayas, Kedara, Gokarna, and Northern Bengal and their overall conflict with the Tibetans, it's enough for the title to be "Pala Tibetan Wars" or "Pala Tibetan Conflicts."
You have also wrongfully accused the article of violating Wikipedia's policy on synthesis content, which it does not. I'm inclined to believe that you either do not comprehend what that policy entails or are merely using it as a false pretense to have the article removed.

You're welcome. And I urge you to PLEASE familiarize yourself with the definition of WP:SYNTH before claiming that this article contains synthesized material :) Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please pinpoint a source for me that talks about the Pala-Tibetan wars/conflicts? Please quote the relevant material if the source is not freely accessible online. If we don't actually have details about the war/s, then the material is better convered in discussions of the extent of the Pala domain or the same under a particular ruler. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources provided in the background section, and Dharmapāla's conflict with Tibetans and Devapāla's conflict with Tibetans. Here is one of them:

The ancestors of these 'Niwads' (Nimars), while living in Nimar of Central India, seem to have been hired as mercenaries to fight with Tibetan occupation armies either by Dharma Pala (770-815 A.D.) or his famous son King Deva Pala (815-855 A.D.), who had liberated entire Himalaya from the Tibetans. In the opinion of Dr. R.C. Majumdar, King Dharma Pala had already driven away the Tibetans from 'Kira Pradesh' (present day Kangada and Kinnaur of Himanchal Pradesh near Chandra-Bhaga and Nêyar country of Gadhwal). [In Munger Inscription, Deva Pala is credited to have liberated entire Himalayas from the Hunas (Tibetans).] Rahul Sanskrityan on the basis of Chinese historical records, writes that the Tibetans had lost their control in Himalayas during 839-848 A.D. (i.e. during the life time of Deva Pala).

* Source: Ancient Nepal. The Department of Archaeology Number 176. 2005. p. 16 [10th reference in the article] Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devapāla came into conflict with Tibet, there is nothing impossible in this because Tibetan sources claim that their kings Khri-srong-lda-btsan and his son Mu-teg-btsan-po subdued India and forced Räjä Dharma- påla to submit. Devapāla also may have come to clash with them and defeated them.

* Source: 1. Diwakar, R. R. (1958). Bihar through the ages. p. 312.
2. Sinha, Bindeshwari Prasad (1974). Comprehensive History Of Bihar Vol.1; Pt.2. pp. 252–253. Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sources mentioning their conflicts/wars as "Dharmapāla's Conflict with the Tibetans" (Regmi, D. R. (1965). Medieval Nepal: Early medieval period, 750-1350 A.D. Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay. p. 88.) and "Devapāla's Conflict with the Tibet"(Chowdhury, Abdul Momin (1967). Dynastic History Of Bengal. p. 39.), I think it would be more appropriate to change the title of the article to "Pāla Conflicts with the Tibet".

What do you think about it? Based Kashmiri (talk) 11:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable. If you need something to get added into Wikipedia, add those into the parent articles;if they fails WP:GNG. Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the sources listed in the discussion above are the best sources we have, there was no such thing as the "Pala Tibetan War", let alone whether it meets WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's lots of discussion here, but some concrete !votes are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete The volume of talk here is not a good sign, but in any case, the fact that there's no appeal to a work specifically on this subject is a red flag, as one would expect something of the sort for a notable conflict which supposedly went on for many decades. Mangoe (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the absence of a source which actually covers the subject says that this is WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR and SYNTH all around. This is not notable if no one has talked about specifically a conflict between the Tibetans and Palas. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:33, 6 May 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 Illegal drug trade in China. Whoever does the merge should be aware of the creator's LLM usage. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China and the opioid epidemic in the United States[edit]

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

Page is a WP:POVFORK of the page Opioid epidemic in the United States, information from this article could be incorporated into that article, however creating a separate page just on this issue is entirely unnecessary when we already have Illegal drug trade in China. The contents of this article can easily be incorporate or are already incorporated into those two articles. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Medicine, China, and United States of America. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article on the smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States is strongly supported by high-quality secondary sources that establish the subject's notability and significant in geopolitics. Sources such as the Brookings Institution [83] and the Council on Foreign Relations [84] provide in-depth analyses of China's role in the global fentanyl crisis, detailing the inadequacies in enforcement of regulations post-2019, and the shift in trafficking routes that continue to impact the U.S. Furthermore, the German Marshall Fund offers a nuanced view on the fluctuating dynamics of U.S.-China cooperation on narcotics, emphasizing the geopolitical complexities that underscore the ongoing challenges in addressing this critical issue [85]. We can't possibly cover all aspects of this subject in the mother article, which is already bursting at the seams. This is a classic content fork project. FailedMusician (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then include it in the Illegal drug trade in China article. The first sentence "Smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States has significantly contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States, an issue that has persisted since the 1990s." reads as though China has been a major contributing factor to the opioid epidemic since the nineties - does not seem like a super neutral POV. Plus the article really only addresses fentanyl. Additionally not sure what the paragraph starting with "In a subsequent visit on July 6–9, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen..." has to do with the topic. If you remove extraneous information it is definitely trimmable to a section in a different article - heck even expand United States sanctions against China as you have already been doing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to main article Some of this material is already there, and the rest should be. I note also that the title is misleading in that it treats the foreign relation aspect in general, not just about China. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illegal drug trade in China I agree with the nomination the content could be better described there, and having the content there gives potential for a more WP:GLOBAL perspective on the issue. Jumpytoo Talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (partial) the subject is a synthesis and the article a fork. The China connection is already discussed in the main article. It shouldn't be much longer than that, but a limited merge might be ok. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Merge I agree with Draken Bowser - also am concerned an independent article will become a possible POV content fork. I don't think a bunch of neo-cold-war anxiety will benefit a neutral encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Illegal drug trade in China is almost exclusively about the trade going on...unsurprisingly... in China. This article is almost exclusively about the impact outside of China, and the geopolitical consequences with the US. I'm not entirely opposed to merging but it would have to be merged into the right article, and I don't think there is one. This article has enough content to stand on its own, and it currently respects MOS:SO given that it expands upon info in a timeline section: Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#2010s_to_present_(increase_in_fentanyl). The Opioid epidemic in the United States article is >13k words which makes it WP:TOOBIG for a merge that will respect due weight. Glad to see there isn't any 'neo-cold-war anxiety' present in the article when read. Tone is neutral and disinterested, in accordance with WP:NPOV policy. SmolBrane (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is true - Illegal drug trade in China also addresses trafficking within the Golden Triangle and deals with drug treaties and other international relations issues. Furthermore, there is no page that is titled "Mexico and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States" or "Afghanistan and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States" - most of the stuff that is covered in the article could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs and placed somewhere else. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partial MErge to Illegal drug trade in China, being judicious about what we bring over per Draken Bowser. Pinguinn 🐧 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:FORK, as I also think should be done in such cases. Please make it smerge. Bearian (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it seems likely that parts of this article may have been created using ChatGPT. Anyone merging will want to carefully scrutinize any material they retain. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and will probably need going through with a fine tooth-comb first, as the article creator has been busted for abusing LLMs to create content and a spot check already turned up one issue. Bon courage (talk) 13:14, 8 May 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Girabola seasons[edit]

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

Per WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The list of seasons can already be found in the main article Girabola, another duplicate article being unnecessary. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Angola, and Lists. Svartner (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shouldn't you include everything linked to? Category:Girabola seasons Dream Focus 11:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, Svartner doesn't advocate deletion of the individual seasons, just the overarching list - which adds exactly nothing to the category. Geschichte (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, my question is whether there is a separate list if the main article already includes a list of seasons. Svartner (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its unneeded. also kind of goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The way the article is made, it may as well just be a category page. Shadow311 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The seasons are listed in the template. If no other information is in the list article, it becomes pointless. Dream Focus 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand/improve, in-line with List of Premier League seasons etc. This is ~~Morocco's~~ Angola's top football competition. Giant Snowman 18:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I am at abstained vote here.) This list could be more useful if done right. As GS pointed out we do have them. And @GiantSnowman: this is the Angolan league, not the Moroccan! :/ Govvy (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, getting Girabola mixed up with Botola! Giant Snowman 20:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - at the moment this is a duplicative, unnecessary article, but there's the potential for a better article here if someone wants to create something more detailed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner, Shadow311, Dream Focus, Govvy, and SportingFlyer: I have started the process of converting into a proper list a la List of Premier League seasons, just need someone with time and knowledge to help... Giant Snowman 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using RSSSF which lists all the champs... Giant Snowman 20:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've just noticed has pages for every individual season, such as 1979, 1980 etc. As such, if you still don't want to keep, please agree to draftify so I can work on it. Giant Snowman 20:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with draftification, but I do hope it's more comprehensive than just what's on the Girabola page. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...which it would be if you check my edits to this article... Giant Snowman 20:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between the Premier League and the Angolan championship. The list of seasons is duplicated, as it is also included in the main article Girabola. Svartner (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girabola#Girabola_participation_details list all the information doesn't it? Dream Focus 02:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section is absolutely incomprehensible! I have deleted. Giant Snowman 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm with GiantSnowman here. This article needs work, but that is not a reason for deletion, especially if it not an obvious WP:TNT. This article has a lot of potential à la List of Premier League seasons, so it's not a TNT. Anwegmann (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Right now it does contain dupliate information, but it meets WP:CLN as a navigation list. I agree this article (and the articles in this category) need cleanup and sources. Aside from CLN, I think this would be discussed as a group in reliable sources. I don't think this rises to the point of needing TNT. // Timothy :: talk 05:53, 2 May 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 The Pietasters , which I assume is the target participants had in mind when proposing this as an ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Mix Tape vol. 6[edit]

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

Can't find any mention of this album anywhere. Additionally posted my concerns to the talk page in an attempt to get sources added so I'm assuming WP:GNG fails. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this blurb and this review, the latter after just searching for Awesome Mix Tape. A few sources (likely unreliable zines but might be worth checking) used Awesome Mix Tape #6 or just Awesome Mix Tape 6 instead, so it's probably worth a deeper search with that in mind. A lot of 1980s/'90s punk albums like this one slipped under the radar for major publications, but that doesn't mean there's nothing out there for them. And I wouldn't rely too much on article talk pages for seeking out sources for something since the only editors who will see that are those who have the page on their watchlists, which could be nobody. Fortunately, AfDs are made to get a lot more eyes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, at minimum redirect. Reviewed in Melody Maker, Daily Herald, Regina Leader-Post, The Morning Call, The Press of Atlantic City (surprisingly long), The Indianapolis Star, The San Diego Union-Tribune. Don't have full access to everything, but many of the other hits seem to be mentions in show previews/show reviews. Caro7200 (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree on a redirect here. Is there a way you could provide links to the sources here? If these sources have good WP:DEPTH I would be more than willing to change my mind. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:47, 17 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!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay, apparently it exists, but nothing in this article indicates any notability whatsoever. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:30, 7 May 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 04:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Brochon[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible I missed something, as Google had a good amount of hits, but really all that came up were interviews (1, 2) and post-match quotes (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional footballer who made his Super League debut in 2018, and has made dozens of appearances for another professional club in France.Fleets (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fleets, this !vote rationale is invalid, as participation-based athlete criteria were deprecated 2 years ago and the existing requirement that athletes meet GNG was strengthened to require at least one SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article from the start. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per JT, news items would be the very least to qualify as RSs. Tony (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is routine or primary/nonindependent in addition to being trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Played for Catalans and Toulouse and there should be more written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 22 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!} 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:31, 30 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 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus without prejudice against selective merge. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Alaska Democratic presidential caucuses[edit]

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

Unnotable election that happened by voice vote with only Biden on the ballot. Can be sufficiently covered with one sentence at 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFAIK, we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But does the sourcing for this voice vote meet WP:GNG? I can't find anything more than passing mentions. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our practice is that we keep these primaries & caucuses pages, of the major parties. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What policy or guideline is that supported by? AusLondonder (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska - Lack of any opposition candidates/ballot options makes the existence of a standalone page not necessary. Longestview (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The election and information surrounding it is basically nonexistent so the case for keeping it up is a difficult one to make. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable election. There is no reason to remove the article because of the method of voting. There is coverage of this from the LA Times, ABC News, PBS, Whitter Daily News which republished an AP article which describes in detail the procedure of the election in Alaska. Cleary there are enough reliable sources to help the article. Finding this took less than a minute. I don't see how one can say the information about the election in Alaska is nonexistent or the fact there is only one person on the ballot makes it less noteworthy. The articles for Delaware and Flordia primaries were redirected because no vote was held since Biden was the only candidate per state law, but in Alaska an election still happened. This is not a well-researched Afd nomination that was brought forward. The nominator's only reason for nominating is the method of voting that was held and hasn't provided where there were passing mentions. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you listed seem to be mostly routine coverage. Especially the ABC News article which does little more than list non existent results. This and this are probably the only sources I would argue do better than just passing or routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read Alaska is not a reliable source. It has a right-wing bias if you clearly see the way the article and all articles on there are written. So what if they are routine coverage? By that logic, you will need to delete or redirect all primary articles because they have news sources that cover election results. If you read the LA Times and Whitter repost of an AP article, you can see it isn't passing as it goes into detail as to how the caucuses were held. Your argument for passing mentions is not backed by the sources I listed above. There is coverage of the caucuses from reliable sources. When you nominate an article for deletion, you should prove that there isn't enough coverage which you didn't do. Your nomination is malformed and not backed by any evidence as is the case with the redirect votes. I recommend reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources because all the sources I listed are reliable and prove notability of the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ROUTINE for what I mean by routine coverage. What I meant more that is the level of depthness for those articles is what I would consider the bar to be for sustained, in-depth coverage. Also, I would greatly appreciate if you toned down some of your comments, you're coming off as very hostile. Lets try to keep this disagreement civil. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Onus is on you to prove your claims when you start the nomination. You must provide facts and evidence for your nomination. You haven't provided anything to the contrary from the sources I found which proves notability. This does not violate any routine coverage guideline or policy because there are sources that go in-depth about the caucuses which I have already explained which do. First step should have been to start a discussion on the talk page of the article instead of trying to redirect it and then nominating it for deletion. Xfd is not for expressing what feeling you have about a source. You must prove that sourcing is inadequate enough for the article not to be its own page. As it states on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." All the links I found was through a quick Google search. And passing mentions along with the in-depth sourcing that does exist is still okay to be enough for the article to be sourced and all the links I found are reliable. Therefore, the article has merit to remain as is. All that needs to be done is to add the information I have provided. Not remove the article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm the creator of the article, and I will watch everyone's opinion and do not do anything. Memevietnam98 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with decent coverage and notable election, despite no opposition. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Both Biden and Philips made the ballot, but Philips withdrew his presidential campaign. Maybe add him to the infobox just like Nikki Haley is on the Republican primaries infoboxes despite having also withdrawn her campaign. Daniel (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Philips was not on the ballot, he was removed after he withdrew. It was a voice vote with just Biden on the ballot. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus, similar to what we have done to other primaries this election where no other candidates appeared on the ballot. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus per Esolo5002, Longestview, DukeOfDelTaco, Politicdude, and WP:NOPAGE. Coverage is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska: The standalone is not necessary and is not notable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia will look biased if they delete this just because there is only one candidate. Even worse, maybe ridiculous, when the one you're eliminating is the sitting President of the United States. An election result is an election result, regardless of how many candidates participated. It's Wikipedia's written record. Wikipedia kept the results of the Republican primary with name recognition and images of their candidates. Likewise, looks biased just as bad if the Democrat results don't get its own page, but is a redirect. Not good, conveniently eliminating the image and returns of Biden. It's in Wikipedia's best interests to keep both. — Maile (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable election and other reasons above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus. There's nothing to really say for the uncontested event. It's standard practice not to need separate pages like this and I see no issue of bias; we should be merging a lot more of them even if contested. We are still covering what happened, just not on an unnecessary standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable article with reliable sources, there is no reason to delete it. Biden was the only one on the ballot doesn't matter, in Wikipedia rules about Wikipedia article just only concentrate about sources and how notable about it.Geotubemedia (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus Some very unconvincing keep arguments above ranging from "Wikipedia will look biased" to simply asserting that "we keep the primaries & caucuses pages of both major political parties". None of these arguments are supported by policy, nor common sense. Sources presented are very much trivial coverage and I see no reason why this cannot be covered as part of the main article. AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 United States presidential election in Alaska#Democratic caucus as above. It isn't "because there's only one candidate" but because it wasn't in any sense a real election. This was as much a real election as those in North Korea are. Not only could delegates not vote for anyone else, they couldn't vote uncommitted, abstain, or vote against Biden. At no stage of this process was anyone participating actually allowed to do anything but vote for Biden or delegates who would have to vote for Biden. 76.6.209.95 (talk) 10:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article has a plethora of reliable third-party sources. How is it not notable? The result was covered by news outlets around the country. The reasons offered for deleting this article don't make any sense. For example, why does it matter that Biden was the only one on the ballot? That's just a subjective personal gripe that doesn't relate to the usual standards for deletion. This should obviously be kept. — 4idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.252.37.120 (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 29, was originally closed as a BADNAC. I do wish to note explicitly and for the record that consensus is not achieved by counting votes. This is a discussion, and consensus can be found even when participation is roughly equal, if one side's arguments is stronger. However, this needs to be contextualized and rationalized in a closing statement by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge Per WP:MERGEREASON, merging doesn't necessarily mean that this caucus isn't notable, just that there isn't enough to say about it to justify its own article. This caucus was essentially a non-event, and the "article" is mostly infoboxes, sidebars, and other template cruft. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the tables were turned, and it was the other party's nominee who had this caucus result of being the only candidate and not garnering many votes, how would people be reacting? I assume good faith here, but let's be consistent with the candidates. — Maile (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've merged from the other party as well, not all of us care about American politics in a partisan manner. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge We've been redirecting elections such as these which aren't quite notable enough for their own article - while there's obviously some coverage, there's not much to say and they basically violate WP:NOTNEWS and our event guidelines while being able to be covered adequately elsewhere on the site. SportingFlyer T·C 03:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge Adds no value to WP as a teeny stub. A trivial uncontested primary of this type can be easily covered in one sentence in the main article. Feels like people create these non-articles purely to check off the redlinks in Template:2024 Republican primaries, but many of those links just need to be a redirect to "<Year> United States presidential election in <state>#Republican caucuses". 2024 Nebraska Republican presidential primary falls into the same category. I'd go as far as to say that being a section in the main <election in state> article should be the default, with caucuses only getting a standalone article when there's some major controversy or it was a bigger/more heavily contested primary. Even minorly contested primaries like 2024 Washington Republican presidential primary (Trump vs. Haley) are really just a results box that could be as easily slotted into the main article and fall under WP:REDUNDANT. Hemmers (talk) 15:53, 7 May 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 04:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangnanwenshuyuan[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability for this housing development. I cannot find it on the map. The original author has made similar contributions that were speedily deleted a decade ago. The style of writing in first person ("my neighborhood") is not encyclopedic. Most importantly, I don´t think this urban housing development is notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:NBUILDING. The property development is called 江南文枢苑. From searches I see no indication of special social, cultural, architectural importance. The cites are basically broken/spam links. Oblivy (talk) 01:49, 30 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. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Round[edit]

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

Minor restaurant chain, the remains of a bigger one--but neither is well-verified or notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier chain is where most of the notability is, Drmies. The problem is that it's mostly pre-social media coverage (and a lot of wading through ads and non-article material). I turned up a very long 2004 article that could help: [86] + [87]. Also: [88] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Sammi Brie, wanna help me out? Drmies (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: Done and more. Nation's Restaurant News (in EBSCOhost via TWL) has some substantial coverage of this chain's perpetual problems. We are in clear Keep territory. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a major, nationwide restaurant chain for a many years. It's basically died out, sure, but Wikipedia actually does have some articles on things that don't exist anymore. The article could stand some improvement, certainly, but it's functional enough in its current state, even. -R. fiend (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other keep !votes. I am really having trouble figuring out how there could even possibly be an argument for deletion. Maybe it depends on what part of the U.S. you grew up in. When I was a kid these places were everywhere. The last one near me, in a now-embalmed mall, closed years ago after an employee got murdered there after hours. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only heard of this chain because of reading about it online. Even at its height, I don't think it operated in the Southwest. The closest it might have come was Idaho. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to User:Sammi Brie's extraordinary research and writing to establish notability and bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. SilverbackNet ^talk 07:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets our notability requirements.Note: I came here from DYK because the article was nominated there. Bruxton (talk) 15:03, 1 May 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 2024 American Samoa presidential caucuses#Republican caucuses. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses[edit]

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

Despite sources existing, there is no reason for this article to exist separate from 2024 American Samoa presidential caucuses#Republican caucuses. There it can be sufficiently covered in one sentence. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In uncontested race, results are easily and best covered in main article. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 American Samoa presidential caucuses#Republican caucuses: Subject doesn't contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's very little information other than the election results and the majority of sources have nothing to do with this specific race. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should understand that even if there are territories that do not participate in the 2024 US presidential election race, but for this article, there are full secondary sources, redirecting will not make it better, so if this Republican caucus would be deleted, the article about the Democratic caucus should have been deleted as well.

Memevietnam98 (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the Dem caucus is more notable than this one. An incumbent President lost the race from someone within his party. And that one has more coverage than this one. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 11:58, 6 May 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 03:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thyago Moraes[edit]

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

I cannot find anything online about this football player. I find that strange because usually you would at least find his name on sports info, betting websites and so forth. But nothing.The so-called external links are not helpful either, to say the least. The article was tagged 3 times for speedy deletion. As it is, I propose this article for deletion as an unsourced BLP without evidence of notability Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Brazil. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – In WP:BEFORE I didn't find anything relevant about the athlete, I didn't even find a profile on ogol.com., of the sources presented in the article, one is for a video on YouTube, one for an image on a blog, and two are inaccessible. I believe that in this case WP:GNG clearly failed. Svartner (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet GNG. My guess is that he goes by another name. JTtheOG (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also can't find anything to indicate they are notable. KylieTastic (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with notability concerns. I haven't been able to find any reliable sources like news articles or independent reviews to support the notability of this subject. Waqar💬 18:07, 4 May 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 speedy keep. While assuming good faith on Agusmagni's behalf, there is no reason to entertain Agusmagni's wish to propagate discussions about topics that everyone else consider notable. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Army Wives[edit]

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

Non-notable Lifetime TV show.Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 20:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, and United States of America. Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 20:50, 29 April 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 April 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This ran for seven seasons, and had 117 episodes. The article has 61 in-line sources. The series aired in numerous countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, Sweden, France, and other countries. This show was nominated for numerous awards, and won several of those. It has a separate List of Army Wives episodes. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the above comment. XOR'easter (talk) 01:38, 30 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!} 06:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birwahi[edit]

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

Very small village (popn around 1000) with nothing notable online as far as I can see. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's reason is invalid. All populated places are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree population size isn't a valid reason but there doesn't appear to be census data for it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this showing the population, but got a bit lost as to what this actually is. SportingFlyer T·C 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That site looks like it's published by the Panna district authorities, but I could find no explicit statement of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - refs added (which were not difficult to find); a badly judged nomination. Ingratis (talk) 13:33, 2 May 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!} 12:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster[edit]

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

There is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the nom. I do not see how WP:NRIVALRY is met. While there is coverage of other rivalries with Leinster (eg: "Leinster drawn with fierce rivals La Rochelle" "Rivalries we Love" (..) "Stade Toulousain v Leinster Rugby" "Penalties Give Leinster The Edge Over Rivals Munster", etc) the only material coverage of a "rivalry" with Leicester, that I can find, is this primary source. Which was published the same week as this article. Straying from an objective review of the volume/reliability/relevance/applicability of sources, from a subjective point-of-view, these sides have only met 15 times in nearly 30 years. Which is well short of the 100+ games with provincial rivals (like Munster) and, per nom, in the same region as the other AfD discussions listed. While the sources just about cover the WP:NOTSTATS content in the article, I note that none of them appear to describe those games as involving "rivals". Not seeing how WP:NRIVALRY (incl WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NLIST or WP:GNG) is met here.... Guliolopez (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. Let'srun (talk) 21:33, 4 May 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 04:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cativa Natureza[edit]

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

Arrticle barely has three sources and one is WP:ROUTINE coverage. In addition, the article has been deleted and salted on Portugese Wikipedia given WP:PROMO concerns. It is highly unlikely this company is notable and a search has returned little. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Fashion. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 20:22, 30 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Bonacorsi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Missouri. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (Inquirer, Golden Skate, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NSKATE is not as important as BASIC. This is a useful short article on a skater who was reasonably successful in junior skating tournaments. Articles on those tournaments work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles (for example: ISU Junior Grand Prix in Australia). Deleting articles such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please familiarise yourself with WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Your argumentation seems to fall fully within that realm. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the subject of the article meets WP:BASIC is a valid policy-based reason for keeping the article. Hameltion had already given examples of significant coverage in two different reliable sources, so there was no point in my repeating them. Nothing in the essay you mentioned contradicts that.
Explaining how articles like this one support other articles is not a policy-based reason for retention. But it is nevertheless true.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said that BASIC is important, which looks like a general statement. What we should do is discuss the actual sources and whether they are good enough to base a Wikipedia biography about a living person upon. The rest of it more or less clutter and should therefore be toned down. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough WP:SIGCOV in the sources already present in the article to meet WP:GNG. Yet another poor nomination. @Toddy1: You can see an archived version of the Inquirer article here. JTtheOG (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Toddy1
Mittan, Barry (January 17, 2010). "Junior Dancers Off to Good Start". Skate Today. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012.	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Rutherford, Lynn (January 20, 2009). "New partners Bonacorsi, Mager dance to win". Icenetwork. Archived from the original on September 26, 2012. Retrieved September 9, 2011.	~ Source discusses the subject briefly	~ Partial
Walker, Elvin (October 16, 2011). "Bonacorsi and Mager hope to turn silver into gold". Golden Skate. Retrieved October 16, 2011.	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Boccella, Kathy (February 27, 2011). "Radnor High skater's odyssey takes her to world championships". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved October 16, 2011. Boccella, Kathy (February 27, 2011). "Radnor High skater's odyssey takes her to world championships". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 31 January 2013.	The first one is a gallery of four photographs. The captions discusses the subject very briefly. The second one is the article that goes with the gallery, which discusses the subject directly and in detail. Amended after JTtheOG provided an archive link	✔ Yes
"Lauri Bonacorsi and Travis Mager lead novice ice dance at 2009 U.S. Figure Skating Championships". LifeSkate. January 19, 2009. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved August 29, 2011.	Mentions the subject in passing	✘ 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}}.

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

[1] "National Teaching Fellows of 2015 are named". Times Higher Education (THE). 2015-06-11. Retrieved 2024-04-30.

[1]