Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 08 April 10 >

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 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! 19:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr NSAM Pre University College[edit]

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

One of 44 different establishments under the aegis of the NITTE education trust. I cannot find anything online about the Pre University College except that it exists. Newhaven lad (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete based on lack of sources ... however, it would be useful if an intersecting article on a non-English wikipedia were to be identified. My feeling is that this is an example of an article that would best start outside en.wiki and be brought in if possible. There are many thousands of these. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Port Pirie#Education and culture. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Risdon Park High School[edit]

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

Declined prod. I could find no indepth coverage in google news and google books to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Port_Pirie#Education and culture. Failing that, delete. To be clear, this school is not notable under this name, which is neither the current nor the oldest name. On the face of it, it should be deleted. But the Port Pirie page links this page under the current school name of John Pirie Secondary School. That link is not right though. This school merged with another, Port Pirie High School, to form John Pirie Secondary. And I cannot find good secondary sources sufficient to meet GNG for any of these various schools, nor under the former names. We have some primary newspaper stuff and the usual directories, but really there is nothing I could find. There shouldn't really be a page for any of these schools. However, there is an existing school, the John Pirie Secondary school, and this page contains a very small amount of detail that tells us how that came about through merger and how one of the merged schools was formerly a technical school. That information could be placed on the Port Prie page, where it is useful to the reader. It is a tiny merge, but a merge nonetheless. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:04, 15 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! 22:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U of I Community Credit Union[edit]

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

Zero secondary sources, fails WP:ORGCRIT. Created as promo by single-purpose COI account. AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The entirety of the article is a blatant WP:COPYVIO, mostly verbatim copying and a little light paraphrasing from here and here. Not sure if speedy deletion can apply once AfD is launched but it meets the criteria. As for this AfD discussion, delete -- there is no independent, significant, reliable and secondary coverage of this credit union, so it fails WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Thanks for that, articles at AfD can be speedily deleted if they meet the criteria. It appears that the article was previously speedily deleted as a copyvio and then recreated by the same SPA with slight tweaks. AusLondonder (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's mundane news coverage but nothing that I would say gives rise to notability. I've declined the speedy deletion as the original version of the article looks like with was sufficiently different from the credit unions' web page. But the article reads promotionally (not enough for speedy) and there's no point in fixing that wording as this is just not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the lack of readily available sources, fails WP:ORGCRIT.Dejaqo (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Local news of a new VP or the like does not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 11 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! 19:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garia Main Road[edit]

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

Article about a road. I can't find sufficient evidence of notability. HenryMP02 (talk) 21:50, 5 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! 22:52, 9 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! 01:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidullah Khan (Bagram captive)[edit]

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

While this article clearly meets WP:GNG, it does not seem to meet WP:BLP1E given that the subject is only notable for one event. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consistent media coverage surrounding him makes it unclear why WP:BLP1E would be applicable in this case.--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part 1: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." (In this case, his detainment). Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So why do we have so many BLPs on extrajudicial prisoners of the US, who also fall under the WP:BLP1E criteria? I believe GNG take precedence. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, this is because they are notable for something they did before and or after in these cases. (For example, being a militant, or a particularly notable trial.) Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 5 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! 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I'm not sure getting wrongly arrested gets you an article. He was a 14 yr old child, who doesn't appear to have been notable otherwise. I can't find anything about him since the detention, so no lasting effects. And having an article about the individual with no other notable reason seems to go against our principles here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 11 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! 20:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Petit[edit]

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

The sources of this article are broken and mostly self-promotional. Hence, it fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 5 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! 22:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP. A person who is a morning talk radio host and "2nd Assistant Pastor" is in no way notable. The bizarre lack of WP:SIGCOV is disturbing for a BLP. She has virtually no social media presence to speak of - five (5) connections on LinkedIn. I don't know if this was created as a joke or a resume. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 11 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! 22:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hernandez (musician)[edit]

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

Apart from the promotional tone, the subject fails WP:NMUSIC. Bhivuti45 (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Note: The nominator has been blocked for undeclared paid editing Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2024[reply]

  • Comment In addition to those in the article, some other sources I've found include:
  • St. Cyr, Sylvia (September 8, 2021). "Paul Hernandez releasing fresh new single". CHVN-FM. Retrieved March 30, 2024.
  • St. Cyr, Sylvia (February 15, 2021). "Christian artist says 'power of music' felt in worship". CHVN-FM. Retrieved March 30, 2024.
  • Bourne, Kevin (August 11, 2020). "Vancouver Rapper Paul Hernandez Explores Faith, Life And Anxiety On Debut EP Deeper Things". Shifter Magazine. Retrieved March 30, 2024.
These were just from a general Google search though, not a deep dive. So hopefully even more can be found. SilverserenC 20:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 5 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! 22:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage as identified above and coverage such as Rolling Stone translated here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources presented above and Rolling Stone article, would make the subject notable.RolandSimon (talk) 22:08, 14 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 03:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment[edit]

The Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Search turns up lots of profiles in charity directories but I don't see any substantive independent coverage of this organization, fails WP:NORG. Reywas92Talk 14:56, 29 March 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 23:32, 5 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! 22:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ merge with Stereotypes of British people. I have seriously considered the proposal to transwiki the content to Wiktionary since Wiktionary does accommodate definitions of various idioms as well as words. However, Wiktionary has a Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion policy or guideline, that requires "attestation" to verify that the term or phrasing is in widespread or at least durable use and I have been unable to verify that the expression "Plucky Brit" is an idiom that meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

Many of the listed sources don't use the term "Plucky Brit" at all, and even the ones that do, such as the cited BBC article don't seem to use it idiomatically. Rather, it is the adjective "plucky" to describe the noun "Brit". Defining a "Plucky Brit" as a Brit who is plucky doesn't bring any new meanings that require further definitions. The Times article is behind a paywall, and may be using the term idiomatically based on the capitalization in the title, but even so "durable use" on Wiktionary calls for at least three examples of the expression being used.

The other WP:ATD option that was suggested was merging and redirecting to the "Stereotypes of British people". Although this option was crossed out by its proposer, on the belief that the transwiki option had more support, this option is consistent with policies and guidelines. A number of the cited in the articles do indeed explicity refer to the "plucky" sportsman as "stereotypically" British, so including this content there is in line with WP:V and WP:NOR. I am closing this discussion accordingly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plucky Brit[edit]

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

Seems like WP:NOTDICT. Found this article while trying to de-orphan, only other mention of this phrase relates to a military serviceman so definition is not even accurate. Orange sticker (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on deletion, which is unfortunate because someone took the time to source this well and I think it's a good article but it doesn't really fit Wikipedia's mission.
UptonSincere (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry, this made me realise I hadn't notified the creator of this article - rectified now. Orange sticker (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and inter-wiki redirect to wikt:plucky Brit, I think most of this article could be salvaged on Wiktionary. The quotes and references could be used as attestations. That way the work wouldn't go to waste. --Habst (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the quotes in the article doesn't even say "plucky Brits", they say "[British] plucky losers" which I think Wikitionary would consider to be a different phrase. ---- D'n'B-t -- 15:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @DandelionAndBurdock, thanks, what do you think about adding that specific quote to wikt:plucky then, and adding the rest of the references (which do specifically say "plucky brit") to wikt:plucky Brit? --Habst (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Habst, I'd support adding that particular quote and others to wikt:plucky: the sources suggest to me that the word plucky is an adjective that can be applied to "looser", "sports team"[1] and "Italian"[2] just as easily as Brit. Maybe an entry could also be created for Plucky Brit in particular but not being familiar with Wikit's inclusion policies I shaln't comment on that. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATD: Merge into Stereotypes of British people, which seems like a good category for this sort of topic. --Habst (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Habst, you present two different outcomes you'd like to see happen. Could you cross out the one that is your "less preferred" choice? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, thank you. Given that there is some consensus for my first proposed outcome, I will cross out this one. But I wouldn't really say I have a preference for either, I think they are both good outcomes. --Habst (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rugby union in the United States#Regional bodies. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deep South Rugby Football Union[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the organization to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRIT. I found a couple of passing mentions in newspapers in Alabama and Mississippi, but nothing in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 22:24, 9 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! 22:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale, Boone County, Indiana[edit]

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

Entered into GNIS from a state highway map, which is never a good sign; it only appears briefly on topos, presumably back-entered from GNIS. Topos and aerials show this to be a rail point with a couple of farmsteads; one is gone and the other turned into a grain bin complex. No sign this was a town. Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like another non-notable onetime railroad waypoint transformed into a "community" through GNIS alchemy. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find anything, hats off to those who did. I hope UncleG will have something more, so its not so unsatisfying.James.folsom (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Well known issues with GNIS reliability and per nom. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 10 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 keep‎ Withdraw, new sources found, now meets WP:GNG (non-admin closure) -- Aunva6talk - contribs 15:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Marshall High School (Richmond, Virginia)[edit]

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

not notable school -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Note: I created the page under my alt account, User:JohnSon12a.)

    I'm new to this and don't know how the process fully works. If the notice on the page means the nomination is due to a dearth of independent sources on the topic, that's in part due to my haste in getting the page up. I realize now, through research, I should've drafted before I submitted it as a final, so that's my fault, and I'm sorry, but I still think that JMHS's long history in Richmond warrants it a page. If there's a way to remove it and place the content back into the draft stage, I'd be happy to continue developing it and then resubmit. If not, and the majority here decides it's not notable, then I have no objections to that decision.

    Thank you,
    Packer1028 (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, I nominated it for deletion because it doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Generally, Database and ranking stes are not considered to be reliable sources for establishing notability. if it results in deletion, you can probably get it moved to draft or a user space instead. see also WP:DRAFTIFY and WP:REFUND. alternatively, if you just want to do that now, i can withdraw this ,and move it for you, as I don't see any copyright or other concerns that would leave it to be speedily deleted. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 19:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked Newspapers.com, and I already found these two sources without any effort. I am positive more exist. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aunva6, what do you think of the sources I found on Newspapers.com. I am not even remotely done scouring the site. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those, but they are primary sources. The question is what makes this school notable? And what sources do we have from which a page can be written about the school? This one, on the page, is pretty good: [3]. Do we have more like that? Even better if published in a history somewhere. That one is still secondary, with significant coverage and independent (even though she is a teacher at the school, she is publishing under the auspices of her university masters thesis). A masters thesis does not generally meet the bar for reliability, but for this purpose I give this one a pass. It is a darn sight better than most sources we are tempted to accept. A couple more like that would carry this over the line for GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about these sources [4] Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of results on Newspapers.com. You should have access to it at the Wikipedia Library. Scorpions1325 (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of WP:PRIMARY. Don't skip over the examples in note d. These are primary sources. We can't use them to assert notability, although assuming we find this to be notable for an article (my thinking is we probably will - just not there yet) we could certainly make use of some of that information, because those sources verify points of fact for the article, such as the date of the rebuilding. So thanks for digging them up, but again, we cannot use primary sources to assert that the school meets the notability guidelines. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pollack, Howard (2017). The ballad of John Latouche. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190458294.
The book is independent, reliably published by OUP and clearly secondary. It contains significant coverage of the school. That is because the subject, Latouche made his first real mark as a writer while at Richmond’s John Marshall High School, which he attended from the fall of 1928 through the spring of 1932. And as a history of Latouche, it mentions the school repeatedly and has information about both the school and their productions. So there is SIGCOV in that source. Adding to this, the source shows a clearly highly notable ex pupil in a school that was founded over a century ago. We know from the other source that there is historic information regarding the end of racial segregation at the school, so all in all, I think this crosses the line. Strictly GNG requires multiple sources (which I would read as "at least 3"), and we so far have just two, but I also note various studies at the school in a scholar search [5]. Studies are primary but they often contain secondary background information. I could search for more, but I am convinced that we have sufficient to call this. With all the evidence found to date, I don't think there is any doubt that this is a notable school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - In response to Sirfurboy's comment, the question is NOT "what makes this school notable?" Notability does not rely on a special condition or event, but on the existence of at least THREE significant, independent, reliable sources, whether or not the sources are present in the existing WP article. Most newspaper sources (unless they are owned/published by the school) are secondary, with the exceptions of interviews of school personnel or students, or public notices provided by the school. When a newspaper reports fact-checked information on topics such as public meetings, integration, or demolition of a public building, it is a secondary source. Kudos to Scorpions1325 for the WP:HEY effort, as given the sources listed above, the subject of this article clearly meets WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't disagree about the article, but I do disagree about newspaper reports being secondary sources. These are primary sources. I pointed Scorpions1325 to WP:PRIMARY, and especially note d. This shows the policy. Additional guidance can be found in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that most of them are WP:PRIMARY. This was just a rare time that I was able to find them so easily. I am not sure that the first source in my second set of links is primary though. Scorpions1325 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note D references WP:NEWSORG, which gives a more nuanced interpretation of which news sources are considered secondary, reliable sources. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NEWSORG is nuanced consideration on the subject of reliability, not to be confused with the question of whether a reliable source is primary or secondary. Note d also has "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, [etc.]" It is not just Wikipedia saying this. This is a matter of historiography. Historians, whose project will look at a subject such as this school, and who write the secondary sources, like the two I discuss above, will use newspaper reports as a primary source. Historians, of course, prefer the primary sources, because they are doing the original research, and writing secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and will utilise secondary sources, including (but not limited to) their research. The question of whether a source is primary or secondary is a nuanced one, and often depends on the question you are asking of the source. Thus a newspaper report may contain secondary information, where it goes beyond reporting and presents analysis. However I have reviewed each of the sources presented above, and these newspaper reports are all primary. This is not just me saying this. See, for instance, what Donnelly and Norton say: Discursive primary sources include other people’s accounts of what happened, such as reports of meetings, handbooks, guides, diaries, pamphlets, newspaper articles, sermons and literary and artistic sources.[1]: 69  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Donnelly, Mark P.; Norton, Claire (2021). Doing history (2nd ed.). London New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 9781138301559.
  • Apologies, I missed I am not sure that the first source in my second set of links is primary though. And you may be right. This is one of those nuanced cases. It is not a newspaper report, but "A Guide to John Marshall High School Examination Returns, 1891-1913". It is a guide written by the archive (Library of Virginia) to the collection of such returns. The collection is a primary source, and a description of the collection, without analysis, is essentially primary too. But there are two paragraphs of historical information in the guide, and these two paragraphs are not merely description of the records, but say something and are information from which the page could be written. It is from a reliable source, and secondary. I did not discuss it further as it doesn't cite its own sources and it is questionable how significant that coverage is. But yes, that was an example of secondary sourced information placed inside a primary source. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Would appear to meet WP:GNG. Three-word deletion rationale is exceptionally weak. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still a valid nomination though.But your claim "would appear to meet GNG" without any further rationale or additional sources is also weak. The Banner talk 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not in the slightest. It's my opinion that it meets GNG. Nothing weak about that. What rationale do you want? An analysis of every single source? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - GNG pass, per sources above. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 15 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! 22:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced manufacturing[edit]

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

Reads like an essay and gives no coherent definition of the term. I don't see anything that suggests this is a widely accepted term with an accepted definition distinct from other, similar, terms. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete All manufacturing innovations are advanced technology— at first; the phrase is vacuous. Mangoe (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague term that could describe anything manufacturing-related at all. I could see this being a worthwhile article if it gave the term a coherent definition, but all we have is vapid slop like "The purpose of such activities is to add value to achieve targeted objectives." Content-free drivel and mostly unsourced to boot. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject is just a vague generic phrase. The sources are equally generic and the style is not encyclopedic. Anton.bersh (talk) 20:58, 16 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! 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hofstra University rape hoax[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong DELETE - A hoax perpetrated by a living person, against other living persons, 15 years ago. WP:SUSPECT and WP:PERPETRATOR The individuals are mentioned by name, which is not in line with Wikipedia's BLP policy. It's more tabloid fodder. — Maile (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Maile66, I'm going to call in a few other admins that have dealt with BLPs: I think this should be gone as quick as possible. User:Bbb23, User:Ponyo, User:Masem, User:S Marshall, what do you think? I'm really surprised this was written up in this way in the first place. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the least disruptive intervention is to blank the page while the AfD plays out, which I've just done.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on both BLP and NOTNEWS concerns. If the article is a fairly complete summary of events, this really has not trigger any significant changes at a larger scale, only impacting the lives of non notable people. The net summary of the event may be a line to discussion in an active about rape on college campuses, without naming names, but not a whole article on this one event. Masem (t) 15:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I almost WP:IAR deleted it but figured if it was challenged there would be even more eyes on the article, which would be very unfortunate as it is a massive WP:BLP violation. WP:AVOIDVICTIM applies here, most specifically "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization".-- Ponyobons mots 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one of the worst BLP violations I've seen in the past three years. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – shocking that this has been up in nearly its current state for the better part of a decade. Clear BLP violation, misses every mark in WP:CRIME. Dan • ✉ 07:02, 16 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! 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amberstudent[edit]

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

WP:ROTM platform/company that fails the notability test. Refs are routine product listings, fundraising announcements and PR stuff. The article reads Iike a promotion of the company. Teemu.cod (talk) 21:05, 9 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Maka[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Think there's just about enough in the article and a search for a weak keep here, especially as the players career is just starting. Draftification a suitable WP:ATD if deemed not. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Top stories for sources online! Per ATD, this is a case of TOOSOON and the best option is draftifying and marked as "promised draft". Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:30, 11 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 Portland, Oregon, mayoral election. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wilson (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate and trucking executive. Of the 6 sources currently cited on the page (technically 7 but 2 are the same), 1 is his campaign website, 1 is the website of his company, and 1 is an article about the mayoral election that mentions him. The other 2 are an interview for his mayoral candidacy by a local news outlet and a profile by a local news site. That last source is really the only one that would help prove notability in my opinion. I can't find anything much better on Google, it seems to be just routine coverage of his campaigns and a couple articles from trade publications in the trucking industry. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support a redirect to that page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He's not notable outside of his candidacy, which is even arguably notable. Not sure the redirect is necessarily valid with the disambiguator, but also don't care. SportingFlyer T·C 22:07, 12 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 Botswana Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tshepo Phaswana[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Botswana Twenty20 International cricketers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per this I don't think there's enough coverage for a WP:GNG pass. RoboCric Let's chat 20:34, 9 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. It has also been noted that this page is at the wrong title, as there is no article at Hampton Branch. signed, Rosguill talk 13:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Branch (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page. No evidence that the Warren Railroad was also known as "The Hampton Branch", and apparently was only used to name an abandoned section of this railroad. CycloneYoris talk! 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As far as I know, the Warren Railroad south of Washington actually was called the Hampton Branch. This is because the section north of Washington (in fact the whole route from Port Morris to Slateford) was the DL&W's main line, and hence was simply called this. After the Lackawanna Cutoff was built, this route took the name of the Lackawanna Old Road. However, this didn't include the section south of Washington, which as the article says, was constructed as part of a failed merger between the DL&W and the CNJ, and hence called the Hampton Branch. Also, to be clear, the entire line is abandoned, as is the Cutoff and the CNJ Main Line past High Bridge. As far as I know, the name "Warren Railroad" was rarely used, and was mainly just a technical term. As for why I made the disambiguation page, it was because there was a railroad in Virginia with the same name, and I thought this was the best way to minimize confusion! This is all a long way to say that I think that the page should stay, or at the very least, be converted into an {{About}} template on one of the two pages! Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and sorry for the admittedly long response! Best, MTATransitFanChat! 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let me expand on what MTATransitFan wrote. The Warren Railroad, a company, built a railway line from Hampton, New Jersey, to near Portland, Pennsylvania. The company is leased in 1857 and merged into the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad in 1945. Under the DL&W the line is administratively split: north of Washington, New Jersey, it's part of the main line (known as the Lackawanna Old Road after the cutoff opens). South of Washington it's known as the Hampton Branch until its abandonment in 1958. This can and should be cited to Taber. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Hampton Branch (New Jersey) is a now a real article. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A hatnote should be added to this new article and the dab page scrapped per WP:ONEOTHER, since it's unnecessary and can be perfectly replaced with a hatnote on both articles. CycloneYoris talk! 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update from nominator: Delete dab page per WP:ONEOTHER (as noted above). Now that an article on Hampton Branch (New Jersey) exists there is no need for this dab page to exist, since there are only two possible targets that this name can refer to. CycloneYoris talk! 20:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Hampton Branch per WP:TWODABS unless someone wants to make a case that the Virginia one is the primary topic. I'm not seeing why it would be, but perhaps I'm missing something. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 17 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 Botswana women Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Kgang[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Botswana women Twenty20 International cricketers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:51, 9 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! 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Al-Sumaiti[edit]

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

Played 74 mins of football in the Emirates but doesn't seem to have WP:SIGCOV and possibly even fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5. He is mentioned twice in a match report for a friendly in Al Khaleej but this is far from significant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:19, 9 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! 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Câmpean[edit]

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

Played 79 mins of football two seasons ago but hasn't done anything of note since. Searches of "Cristian Câmpean" and "Cristi Câmpean" yield nothing better than database sources like ESPN and Marca, neither of which are close to WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 9 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! 22:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Grishi[edit]

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

Had a somewhat brief career but can't seem to find anything close to WP:SIGCOV. The best that I can find is FK Vllaznia, which is not even close to significant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 9 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! 22:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg (GWhizz) Nesbit[edit]

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

No apparent notability in the article, the references used in the article don't seem to mention him, very little in the way of coverage online and additionally the page was created by it's subject as WP:PROMO InDimensional (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and South Carolina. InDimensional (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that this became incredibly confusing because we also have Greg Nesbitt (a politician) and Gregg Nesbitt (a football coach). This rap producer also spells his stage name in a whole bunch of different ways, both with and without a hyphen and sometimes with a space after the G. So prepare for a really annoying search process. With that out of the way, I am unable to find any significant coverage of this producer. He can only be found in his own social media, or briefly listed in the credits for things he produced, or briefly mentioned in articles about the notable rappers he has worked with. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:20, 10 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! 22:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ángel País[edit]

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

According to Soccerway and BDFA, played 7 games of football in his career. The only coverage that I can find is Diario La Región and Futbol Florida, the first of which is just a basic announcement of his departure following a very poor and very short spell at a club. The latter is just a squad listing, which may or may not be the same person. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 9 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) Shadow311 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Blais[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Working actor, but not notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If we can verify that he actually has won the 2 awards mentioned in the intro, then maybe he would meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR, but I was not able to find any news articles as such. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's obviously very poor as written, but it is fixable. It's completely missing a lot of stuff that helps to bolster notability, including several Dora Mavor Moore award nominations (his strongest notability was more as a stage actor than a film or television one), and the referencing actually can be repaired — he hasn't been nearly as active lately as he was in the 1980s and 1990s (he's basically retired from acting and owns a small art gallery now), so his sourcing wouldn't Google very well, but there's quite a bit available in ProQuest. So no disrespect to nominator, as the article is absolutely in an awful state right now and is actually missing a lot of what it should contain — so I totally get why it was listed for deletion, but I'll also take a stab at fixing it right now. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done the deed. Article now has 24 footnotes and a lot more content. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As stated above, article was just lacking the proper research to find suitable references rather than the subject not meeting notability guidelines. The work done to fix that has pretty clearly addressed the problem, so now an obvious keep in my opinion. LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is now properly sourced to demonstrate notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:14, 16 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! 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Garlock[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The Bible Institute referenced is little more than a community centre. All the sources are highly partisan evangeical christian. Nothing independednt and reliable. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   18:37, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Goldschmidt[edit]

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

This page is almost 20 years out of date. His LinkedIn page says he has been at California State University, Northridge for the last 17 years, for three of which he appears to have been worked with the New Mexico Education Department. Apart from his own LinkedIn page, I cannot find any reference to him online (other than that he teaches at CSUN and vague negative references to his time in New Mexico in https//thecandlepublishing.com/?s=pete+goldschmidt). I suggest would need independent confirmation of his notability or seniority or more detail about what happened in New Mexico in order to retain. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — Maile (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He appears to be different from the Peter G. Goldschmidt who works in health information systems. Searching instead for author:pete-goldschmidt finds more, including five publications with triple-digit citations that appear to be by the subject. That might be enough for a weak pass of WP:PROF#C1, but if all we have to use is a one-line entry in the CSUN catalog [6] that's a pretty minimal level of content and sourcing even for a stub. I did find some newspaper stories mentioning "former Public Education Department assistant secretary Pete Goldschmidt" testifying in some New Mexico school legal case, but without any depth of coverage nor even enough information to verify that it is the same Pete Goldschmidt. In any case assistant secretary to the state education department is not going to pass WP:NPOL. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein though I'm dropping the "weak" part, being just a bit more of a hardliner. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG per David Eppstein. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 15 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 withdrawn‎ for now. (non-admin closure) Awesome Aasim 15:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uranus building[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS: This appears to be a fail of WP:NBUILDING and thus is likely not notable. I am finding more coverage of the earthquake than the building itself. If there is more coverage about the collapse, then the title should be "Collapse of Uranus building" rather than this title. Awesome Aasim 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I just took a look at the previous nomination: The claims of "notability" being drawn appear to be from WP:SYNTH. Passing mentions does not guarantee notability. Synthesis of sources that mention individual facts is not an encyclopedia article, it's WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Awesome Aasim 18:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pinging the previous participants, given that this just closed: @Piotrus, @Cunard, @DANGA14, @Vchimpanzee, @Great_achievement, @Chongkian, @Brudelman, and @Liz. Mason (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm mainly interested in what went wrong with the construction of this building compared to others, so I guess that's okay.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is notability regardless of whether it is notable from the earthquake or not. The AFP/Straits Times as well as the United Daily News sources provided in the previous AFD clearly passes the mark for "significant coverage" counted into WP:GNG. There's also other sources from Google that specifically cover the building. WP:NBUILDING states "Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.", for which I find the building to be passing the "historic" part as what the AP has termed as an "iconic" image from the earthquake, in addition to the BBC claiming the image of the building has been "shared across the world". Currently don't have any strong opinions for the proposed new title. S5A-0043Talk 02:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Articles published after the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
      1. "Ceremony held to bid farewell to Uranus building, tilting symbol of Taiwan earthquake". The Straits Times. Agence France-Presse. 2024-04-05. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "Fruit, flowers and incense paper were laid on a table on April 5 as the authorities prepared a ceremony before demolishing a precariously tilting building that has become a symbol of Taiwan’s biggest quake in 25 years. The glass-fronted Uranus building, located in Hualien, the city nearest to the quake’s epicentre, is a 10-storey mix of shops and apartments that has stood for nearly 40 years. The 7.4-magnitude earthquake on April 3 caused it to tilt at a 45-degree angle, its twisted exterior quickly becoming one of the most recognisable images to emerge from the disaster."

      2. Wang, Yanhua 王燕華 (2024-04-04). "花蓮大地震／天王星大樓 6年前震損修繕" [Hualien Earthquake/Uranus Building repaired after earthquake damage 6 years ago]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "花蓮市天王星大樓在二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震時，因受損被列黃單，經修繕已經解除，不料仍被昨天的強震震倒。"

        From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building in Hualien City was placed on the yellow list due to damage during the Hualien 0206 earthquake in 2018. After repairs were lifted, it was unexpectedly still knocked down by yesterday's strong earthquake."

        The article notes: "位於花蓮市軒轅路的天王星大樓，鄰近東大門夜市，一九八六年取得使用執照，九層樓共有七十九戶居住，以套房為主，去年底最新的實價登錄約兩百萬元出頭；二○一八年花蓮○二○六地震發生時，天王星大樓曾因牆壁、地磚被震損，經結構技師勘查後貼上黃單，後來經過修繕，恢復原狀使用，因此解除。"

        From Google Translate: "The Uranus Building is located on Xuanyuan Road in Hualien City, adjacent to the Dongdamen Night Market. It obtained a usage license in 1986. There are 79 households living on the nine floors, mainly suites. The latest real price at the end of last year was about $2 million. When the Hualien 0206 earthquake occurred in 2018, the Uranus Building was damaged due to the earthquake's walls and floor tiles. After inspection by structural technicians, it was affixed with a yellow slip. It was later repaired and restored to its original condition, so it was released."

      3. Yang, Peiqi 楊佩琪 (2024-04-07). "花蓮天王星大樓「內部現況」曝光　由內往外60度斜角視野驚悚" [The "internal condition" of the Uranus Building in Hualien is exposed. The 60-degree oblique view from the inside to the outside is shocking.] (in Chinese). SET News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "7.2花蓮強震發生至今進入第5天，搜救人員持續在花蓮市的天王星大樓等倒塌現場及太魯閣等地進行搜救。有天王星大樓住戶回想自己就是因為經歷921大地震，才從1樓搬到9樓，認為住到較高樓比較有生存空間。"

        From Google Translate: "It is the fifth day since the 7.2 Hualien earthquake. Search and rescue personnel continue to conduct search and rescue operations at collapse sites such as the Uranus Building in Hualien City and in Taroko and other places. Some residents of the Uranus Building recalled that they moved from the 1st floor to the 9th floor because of the 921 earthquake, thinking that living in a higher building would provide more living space."

      4. Li, Ming 李明 (2024-04-06). "天王星大楼开拆 老妇冲现场哭求拿救命钱" [Old woman rushed to the scene of demolition of Uranus Building, crying and begging for life-saving money]. The China Press (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.

        The article notes: "大楼正式拆除，对无法拿出家当的原住户来说，心中也是五味杂陈。其中有位老妇连日来重返现场，哭求工作人员让她重返大楼取出“救命钱”，不过由于现场相当危险，每次都只能铩羽而归。"

        From Google Translate: "The building was officially demolished, which brought mixed feelings to the original residents who were unable to take out their belongings. Among them, an old woman returned to the scene for several days, crying and begging the staff to let her return to the building to withdraw "life-saving money." However, because the scene was very dangerous, she could only fail every time."

    2. Articles published before the 2024 Hualien earthquake:
      1. Selection of three sources:
        1. Rui, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1992-12-16). "卅五億元購台中太府天王星大樓 星僑伍培菘投資敲定" [Purchase of Taifu Uranus Building in Taichung for NT$3.5 billion. Star Overseas Chinese Ng Pei Siong's investment finalised]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 7.

          The article notes: "太府建設公司興建的「天王星」大樓，位於台中市北屯路國民黨台灣省黨部斜對面，基地七百多坪，是地下五樓、地上廿層樓建築。太府建設主管表示，這棟大樓於民國七十八年間完工，地上九樓至廿樓辦公室已出售，其餘規劃為商場；但目前只有「金鼎綜合證券台中分公司」在九樓。"

          From Google Translate: ""The "Uranus" building built by Taifu Construction Company is located diagonally opposite the Kuomintang Taiwan Provincial Party Headquarters on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It has a site of more than 700 square meters and is a building with five floors underground and 20 floors above ground. The Taifu Construction Director said that this building was completed in the 1970s. The offices on the ninth to 20th floors above ground have been sold, and the rest are planned to be shopping malls; but currently only the "Jinding Comprehensive Securities Taichung Branch" is on the ninth floor."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓曾在民國七十九年間獲得建築金獅獎，它採用的「逆打沈箱」施工法，也是同業罕用的施工方式。"

          From Google Translate: "The Taifu Uranus Building won the Golden Lion Award for Architecture in the 1970s of the Republic of China. It adopted the "reverse caisson" construction method, which is also a construction method rarely used in the industry."

        2. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-31). "太府賣樓救急胡姬芳蹤不見 購買天王星大樓價款遲未匯入 市場關心是否有變" [Taifu sells property to rescue Hu Jifang, who is missing. The purchase price of the Uranus Building has not yet been remitted, and the market is concerned about whether there will be any changes]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 8.

          The article notes: "去(八十一)年十二月經濟部投審會通過最大的外僑投資案-新加坡胡姬集團來台購買太府建設公司的太府天王星大樓，計畫經營五星級觀光飯店案，因胡姬集團遲遲未將價款匯入，增添變數，加上最近太府建設公司傳出跳票，使這項交易備受矚目。"

          From Google Translate: "In December last year (81), the Investment Review Committee of the Ministry of Economic Affairs approved the largest foreign investment case - the Singapore Orchid Group came to Taiwan to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building of Taifu Construction Company and planned to operate a five-star tourist hotel. Hu Ji Group has been slow to remit the payment, adding to the uncertainty. Coupled with the recent reports of bounced orders from Taifu Construction Company, this transaction has attracted much attention."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓位於台中市北屯路上，為地上十九層、地下五層大樓，總面積一萬一千坪，前(八十)年中完工。當時太府建設興建這棟大樓煞費苦心，採用沈箱式施工法及新建材，成本比一般大樓高。其次，當初這棟大樓是採先建後售方式，完工後卻遇市場不景氣、股票大跌等，銷售不理想，現整棟大樓只有金鼎証券台中分公司在九樓營業。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is located on Beitun Road, Taichung City. It is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground, with a total area of ​​11,000 square meters. It was completed in the middle of the past (80) years. At that time, Taifu Construction took great pains to build this building, using the caisson construction method and new materials, and the cost was higher than that of ordinary buildings. Secondly, this building was built first and sold later. After the completion, the market was in recession and the stock price plummeted, so sales were not satisfactory. Now only the Taichung branch of Jinding Securities is operating on the ninth floor of the entire building."

        3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1995-06-17). "標得法拍屋 未必穩賺 最近兩家銀行，標到太府天王星大樓，扣除當初貸款，帳面損失約3.5億元。" [Winning a bid for a foreclosure house may not guarantee a profit. Two banks recently bid for the Taifu Uranus Building. After deducting the original loan, the book losses were about $350 million.]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 15.

          The article notes: "民國82年間倒閉的台中市太府建設公司，倒閉前在台中市北屯路上興建的太府天王星大樓，最近由法院執行拍賣，由當初提供貸款的慶豐銀行台中分行、中國信託商業銀行以8億2萬元得標，兩家銀行帳面損失約3.5億元。"

          From Google Translate: "The Taifu Construction Company of Taichung City, which went bankrupt in 1982, and the Taifu Uranus Building built on Beitun Road in Taichung City before its collapse, were recently auctioned by the court. The Taichung Branch of Ching Fung Bank and China Trust Commercial Bank, which originally provided the loan, signed the contract with 8 The bid was worth NT$20,000, and the two banks suffered a loss of approximately NT$350 million."

          The article notes: "太府天王星大樓為地上19層、地下5層建物，當初太府建設公司將這棟大樓規劃為百貨商場，並在81年間以太府天王星地下5樓至地上8樓，設定抵押給向尚未改制為銀行的國泰信託、中國信託公司，借貸11.5億元。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Uranus Building is a building with 19 floors above ground and 5 floors underground. Originally, Taifu Construction Company planned this building as a department store, and in 1981, from the 5th underground floor to the 8th floor of Taifu Uranus, it was mortgaged to the people who have not yet restructured it. Cathay Trust and China Trust Company, which are banks, borrowed 1.15 billion yuan."

          The article notes: "太府建設公司倒閉後，太府天王星積欠的房屋稅未清，該棟大樓遭斷電斷水，地上8樓至19樓的部分承購戶根本無法使用，致該棟大樓目前空無一人，空著養蚊子。"

          From Google Translate: "After the collapse of Taifu Construction Company, Taifu Uranus' accumulated housing taxes were not paid off. The building was cut off from power and water, and some tenants on the 8th to 19th floors were unable to use it at all. As a result, the building is currently empty and empty. Keep mosquitoes."

      2. Additional coverage including passing mentions:
        1. "花蓮昨五級強震 民眾奔逃‧高樓牆裂 中橫落石‧火警虛驚" [Hualien was hit by a magnitude 5 earthquake yesterday. People fled, walls of high-rise buildings cracked, rocks fell, and the fire alarm was false.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1988-04-08. p. 10.

          The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "花蓮市許多高樓建築物包括統帥大飯店、華王大飯店、天王星大樓等，部分牆壁被震出裂縫，壁磚紛紛掉落。"

          From Google Translate: "Many high-rise buildings in Hualien City, including the Tongshuai Hotel, Huawang Hotel, and Uranus Building, had some cracks in their walls and wall tiles falling off."

        2. Wang, Chunrui 王純瑞 (1990-09-17). "出品黃豆油換黃豆粉 解決產銷失衡 十三家黃豆廠以貨易貨和大陸做生意" [Replacing soybean oil with soybean flour to solve the imbalance between production and marketing. Thirteen soybean factories bartered to do business with the mainland]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 11.

          The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "三、大府建設公司「天王星大樓」，為地上十九層、地下五層的建築。"

        3. Ruan, Peifen 阮佩芬 (1993-01-30). "龐大利息拖累 太府建設跳票 董事長陳立興指星胡姬集團購樓價款匯入即可解決" [Huge interest drags down Taifu construction delays. Chairman Chen Lixing pointed out that Hu Ji Group can solve the problem by remitting the purchase price]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 3.

          The article notes: "台中市老字號的太府建設公司最近傳出跳票二千五百多萬元，董事長陳立興昨(廿九)日坦然出面與相關金融機構謀求解決之道。他說，解決太府財務困難的關鍵，要等到取得新加坡胡姬集團購員太府天王星大樓的新台幣十九億元價款後，才可望化險為夷。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu Construction Company, a time-honored company in Taichung City, recently reported that more than $25 million in checks had been bounced. Chairman Chen Li-hsing yesterday (29th) calmly came forward to seek a solution with relevant financial institutions. He said that the key to resolving Taifu's financial difficulties lies in obtaining the NT$1.9 billion price paid by Singapore's Orchid Group to purchase the Taifu Uranus Building."

          The article notes: "太府目前較大筆的金融機構貸款，主要是以太府天王星大樓向國泰信託及中國信託銀行質借的十一億元。"

          From Google Translate: "Taifu's current largest financial institution loan is mainly the $1.1 billion pledged by Taifu Uranus Building from Cathay Trust and China Trust Bank."

        4. Kang, Kunhuang 康堃皇 (2007-08-29). "下月20日投標 台灣金服 拍賣中市不動產" [Bid on the 20th of next month. Taiwan Financial Services Real Estate Listed for Auction]. Economic Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). p. B1.

          The article notes: "台灣金融資產服務公司將在9月20日舉行中國信託商業銀行暨慶豐商業銀行不動產拍賣，此次拍賣標的物位於台中市北區北屯路18號太府天王星大樓地下5樓至地上8樓。"

          From Google Translate: "Taiwan Financial Asset Services Corporation will hold the real estate auction of China Trust Commercial Bank and Ching Feng Commercial Bank on September 20. The auction subject matter is located on the ground floor of Taifu Uranus Building, No. 18, Beitun Road, North District, Taichung City. To the 8th floor above ground."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Uranus building (traditional Chinese: 天王星大樓; simplified Chinese: 天王星大楼) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is plenty of coverage of Uranus building before the collapse, so I oppose a rename. The nominator said the article violates WP:SYNTH, which says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

    It is unclear how any of the sources are being combined to "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". "Synthesis of sources that mention individual facts is not an encyclopedia article" does not violate WP:SYNTH if the synthesis does not "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source".

    Cunard (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep
    Yeah... even tho i didnt see the sources i agree w cunard DANGA14talk 14:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO one sentence of coverage in a source is just a trivial mention, not WP:SIGCOV. Certain structures, namely bridges and tunnels, it is trivial to find mentions in secondary sources, especially going back to close to the bridge's opening. Others, you can't. Awesome Aasim 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I provided in the "Selection of three sources" section do not provide one sentence of coverage. They are lengthy newspaper articles about the Uranus building published in 1992, 1993 and 1995. Cunard (talk) 05:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Building famous in all part of worlds [7][8][9] who became a symbol of hualien earthquake it ended up as a stock photo on the front page of many newspapers. 91.80.26.166 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RECENTISM as well. Better to make the topic about the collapse of the structure rather than the structure itself. Awesome Aasim 18:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was a second AFD started on the same day that the previous AFD was closed? This is not how follow-up AFDs are typically handled and make it look like the nominator was simply unhappy with the results of the first AFD which was withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not realize that there was a previous XfD until after I nominated it with Twinkle (I was going in blind). Maybe there should be a warning if a nomination for a specific page was recently closed. I only addressed the things after the fact. Awesome Aasim 17:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that there is this 1st AfD template at the talk page of the article already (to know that there was a previous AfD)?
Ok then. We assume this is an honest mistake of yours (that you didnt check/see that 1st AfD template in the article's talk page. Please retract/drop this 2nd AfD nomination. Chongkian (talk) 02:29, 14 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! 22:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Molini[edit]

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

Former association football player. Article does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 9 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! 22:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alemão (footballer, born May 1986)[edit]

Alemão (footballer, born May 1986) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former association football player. Article does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 9 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 nomination withdrawn‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvio Porcel de Peralta[edit]

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

Former association football player. Article does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbamouche[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Tito Omburo (talk) 16:28, 9 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. Consensus reached. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Hall (The Wind in the Willows)[edit]

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

A fictional house that doesn't seem to have much in terms of actual coverage. I'd suggest a redirect to The Wind in the Willows. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has your BEFORE search looked at the Google Scholar results? I see several that mention Toad Hall--what's your thought on if any of them constitute SIGCOV? Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of them seem to be passing mentions about its role in the book. Some may be promising, but I can't access them and thus can't determine their potential aid in notability. This book has some good stuff on Toad Hall, as does this one, but the rest of it I can't properly gauge. I may have missed things cause there is way more analysis on this book than I expected, but I don't think there's enough right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, the two links that you posted both go to the same book. What's the second one? The coverage in Kenneth Grahame's The Wind in the Willows:A Children's Classic at 100 does seem pretty extensive. Toughpigs (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - puzzled by this nomination. It is a highly notable fictional house, as I think is already demonstrated by the current coverage. I am quite certain more could be added. What is the policy argument for deletion? Is there one? KJP1 (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Have added some text, cites and four more book/journal sources, including the one mentioned above, which discuss the hall, and its meaning, in detail. Plenty more can easily be identified. KJP1 (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does seem to have significant coverage in secondary sources. In particular, there is coverage, cited on the page, of various forms of dispute and chatter about which real building might have inspired the fictional one. Such source material is mostly lighthearted, but that does not reduce the significance of coverage for our purposes of determining notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. The fictional location has been reproduced in numerous media. Compare Wayne Manor, Sanctum Sanctorum (Marvel Comics). BD2412 T 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of KJP1's excellent additions, per WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a terrific article, with good images and good sourcing. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 14 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 television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSPK-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colorado. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of television stations in Colorado#LPTV stations: this seems like a valid alternative to deletion, as KSPK-LD and most of its repeaters are listed there or at least elsewhere in that page. My only concern is that translator K24IY-D, which is in Raton, New Mexico, would be a surprise there; that one is listed at List of television stations in New Mexico#Translators instead. I suppose there could also be a brief mention in some form at the article for co-owned radio station KSPK-FM, but that article is itself severely undersourced at a time when radio station articles appear to be in the early stages of getting a similar GNG-enforcement housecleaning (not entirely dissimilar to the recent culling of never-notable TV station articles, and all a long-overdue followup to the 2021 RfC that showed no consensus for any looser notability standards than GNG for broadcast stations), so that might not be ideal. Overall, this is another remnant of the much-looser standards of 2007 (and its creation was the lone contribution of Paulkspk (talk · contribs), so there is a probably-now-distant COI angle here too). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or if that fails then maybe redirect if some key info can be merged into where it's directed to. Karl Twist (talk) 11:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 2 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, Shadow311 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. A redirect is the best WP:ATD here. Let'srun (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Martínez[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Has worked with many notable musicians, and his name appears in the credits for many songs as writer, producer and musician, but I can't find significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources. The best I managed was the short 1986 Billboard reference I've added, which describes him as a "veteran producer", and his plans for new releases. For the rest of the vague claims here, about him helping to originate the "Miami sound" (editors searching for that, please exclude the word "Machine" from the search, as he wasn't involved with Miami Sound Machine), or about being invited to join Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons, awards, inductions into halls of fame, etc., I've found nothing. Wikishovel (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. As well as the Allmusic bio, I found a few sources covering him, although not in much depth: Billboard: [12], [13], [14], Books: [15]. --Michig (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep though slightly reluctantly. There are a handful of passing mentions of Martinez in RS, and judging by his career he is someone who should have an article but the lack of dedicated sources to him makes me dubious. What ultimately has pushed me over the line is this dedicated (though short) entry to Martinez in a book. Unfortunately I think this article will most likely stay a stub unless more full sources emerge. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:06, 9 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 9 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 television stations in Texas#LPTV stations. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUMY-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:57, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruliad[edit]

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

The page is a synthesis of ideas, citing sources few of of which explicitly name The Ruliad. It is a neologism of the Wolfram Physics project yet to gain acceptance outside a walled garden of researchers. WP:NOPAGE seems relevant here. Klbrain (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a term that has gained any currency outside of the Wolfram Physics niche, and even if it had, we wouldn't need an article on it. There isn't even enough reliable, secondary coverage of the Wolfram Physics project as a whole to merit a stand-alone article on it. An article on one part of it is putting the cart way before the horse. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The meager results that I get from a Google Scholar search, mostly not reliably published, fail to convince me that this is anything more than Wolfram promotionalism and neologism. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (author of the article): I understand that the article is not good as I thought and I agree to the deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 3695[edit]

Southwest Airlines Flight 3695 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. PROD template removed without significant improvement. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 15:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Clearly fits the Notability and GNG and definitely should stay in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d08:4c7f:da00:4826:b283:76c1:ae6f (talk • contribs) Struck sock vote.

* Keep Fits Everything WP:GNG and should stay, not worth deleting the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationz (talk • contribs) 15:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Struck sock vote. –FlyingAce✈hello 16:17, 9 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RTTNews[edit]

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

WP:GNG. No independent sources found. Daask (talk) 15:24, 9 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 13:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Master in EU Studies (European Online Academy)[edit]

Executive Master in EU Studies (European Online Academy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a qualification has one reference. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found any independent coverage of the course. It has been tagged as potentially not notable and as reading like an advert since 2010. It was PRODed and deproded in December last year. As suggested in the deprod comment, I considered merging or redirecting to the institution offering the qualification, Centre international de formation européenne (CIFE), which has a section on this course; but there is no referenced content to add and I'm not sure this topic is notable enough even for a redirect. (The section on the course in the CIFE article also reads promotional, and is unreferenced.) Tacyarg (talk) 13:05, 26 March 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 14:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 9 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 14:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Episode 28[edit]

Episode 28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Every television and web series that has crossed 28 episodes has an episode 28. There is no limit to creating redirects with the title "Episode 28 (series name)" targeting either a episode article or section or list entry anchor. Creating disambiguation pages with such redirect entries serves no purpose. Note that this is unlike Episode 1, Episode 2, Episode 6 (Episode Six), etc., which do have entries of things with actual titles having "Episode <x>".

Episode 28 was earlier deleted at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Episode 28 with a similar rationale (I was the closer), and it referenced WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 15#"Episode ####" redirects to EastEnders lists or articles, which argued that titles with even very large episode numbers (4066, 5549) can be applied to several long running shows.

Similar to Episode 28, there are many disambiguation pages of the format "Episode xx". They should be deleted too, eventually, and so would not be an argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Jay 💬 13:57, 9 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 13:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Čentéš[edit]

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

Footballer who played 2 minutes in Slovakia. I don't see the player as having the remotest chance of passing WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 looks good but GNG wants more than one good source, generally. There is no minimum agreed for how many minutes make someone notable after WP:NSPORTS2022, however, some people would still argue that a player with a long professional career is more likely to have SIGCOV than someone with, say, 5 minutes of football and nothing else. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:51, 10 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 13:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Gibson[edit]

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

Fails notability per WP:MUSICBIO. I can find three pieces of news coverage on him but they are all examples of the musician talking about themself, which is an exception listed in the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. Additionally the article reads strongly like WP:PROMO and has been edited by the subject. InDimensional (talk) 12:20, 9 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. North America1000 11:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piazza Samsun[edit]

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

There are not enough independent sources to show it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 11:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the BioShock series#Augustus Sinclair. ✗plicit 11:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Sinclair[edit]

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

I am having hard time finding sigcov about him, I may be wrong in the google scholar. All of the sources at reception were just from the game (He is just mostly a passing mention). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bioshock 2 - Like many articles on fictional characters that only appeared in a single piece of fiction, the reception section is just the result of WP:REFBOMBing, where a multitude of extremely trivial mentions are jammed in to give the illusion of genuine coverage. But, the vast majority of these are simply reviews of Bioshock 2 in general, that simply mention the character briefly. In a number of these, it is literally a single sentence worth of "coverage" on the character that is being used as a source. Searching is not bringing up anything that goes into significant coverage on Sinclair himself apart from just general coverage of Bioshock 2 that would allow him to pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 9 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 11:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Beqiri[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the required guidelines WP:GNG & WP:NSPORTS to qualify for an article in the encyclopedia. zoglophie•talk• 10:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source entails performances during a match in the amateur fourth tier. Not significant enough, I would look for more WP:SUSTAINED coverage, personal background etc. In general, it doesn't hurt Wikipedia to postpone the creation until the player played at least semi-regularly over about half a season Geschichte (talk) 07:47, 15 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 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cow Company[edit]

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

I do not believe the article meets notability policy requirements.

In addition, there is a COI (which i have added to the article) - the original article creator User:MarcosAlvoK is the owner of the Company, MARCOS ALVO. www.thecowcompany.com The user does not have a talk page. Their creation and writing was what initiated the advert tag. Given the lack of citations, stub-nature of the article, questionable notability and the COI I believe it should be deleted.

The previous request for speedy deletion (in my view rightly initiated very soon after the article was created by the owner of the company) was opposed/rejected by User:Appable on the basis that the article had claimed credible significance by including a link to a media piece on the "critical acclaim" of the shows run by the company. In the context of the COI, a conflicted inclusion of a small media item on critical acclaim in Chile does not seem to me to meet the bar for a credible claim of significance. I'm not convinced the company owner demonstrated the article as meeting the claim of significance, let alone the claim being credible. Something may be notable in small or specific circles (eg my ability to make a great linguine is notable among my friend group) but not meet the general notability requirements for appropriate inclusion on Wikipedia.

Whisky and more (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have fixed this nomination so that it actually exists fully on the nomination page, rather than {{subst:afd2}} being applied to the daily list instead. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Some coverage about the theater company doing stuff over Zoom [16], [17], [18] Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two are just passing mentions and not sufficient for establishing notability, imo. Mooonswimmer 04:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:From WP:WHYN
    "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)"
    Those linked articles (while helpful!) are all about one aspect of TCC being doing zoom productions and when searched for, mostly TCC's own website/Facebook page etc. come up. A question (am a fairly new editor!) - Does that coverage meet the bar for "significant coverage"? If you consider it does, is there then not a presumption that essentially every company with some article written about them online could have its own article on Wikipedia? Would that be consistent with our mission/intent?
    To me, the best yardstick is whether all the available reliable and secondary sources (not those TCC's own website/pages) would enable, consistent with WP:WHYN, a whole article to be written instead of the current few sentences and list? I'd personally struggle to write such an article. Whisky and more (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable films produced, any coverage is mostly passing mentions. Mooonswimmer 04:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV, and company appears to produce only one production per year, using mostly non-notable directors. Do they produce shows in a noteworthy theatre? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I’ve been able to find or see by searching. Whisky and more (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pronto. Without better references, this can't be kept. Deb (talk) 08:38, 16 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 Belknap Lookout. ✗plicit 11:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belknap Hill[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years and the content reads in a particularly unenyclopedic way. I don't see why the contents couldn't be merged to Belknap Lookout but it doesn't seem like a redirect is necessary as a search will find the other page. JMWt (talk) 09:50, 9 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 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cow Company[edit]

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

I do not believe the article meets notability policy requirements.

In addition, there is a COI (which i have added to the article) - the original article creator User:MarcosAlvoK is the owner of the Company, MARCOS ALVO. www.thecowcompany.com The user does not have a talk page. Their creation and writing was what initiated the advert tag. Given the lack of citations, stub-nature of the article, questionable notability and the COI I believe it should be deleted.

The previous request for speedy deletion (in my view rightly initiated very soon after the article was created by the owner of the company) was opposed/rejected by User:Appable on the basis that the article had claimed credible significance by including a link to a media piece on the "critical acclaim" of the shows run by the company. In the context of the COI, a conflicted inclusion of a small media item on critical acclaim in Chile does not seem to me to meet the bar for a credible claim of significance. I'm not convinced the company owner demonstrated the article as meeting the claim of significance, let alone the claim being credible. Something may be notable in small or specific circles (eg my ability to make a great linguine is notable among my friend group) but not meet the general notability requirements for appropriate inclusion on Wikipedia.

Whisky and more (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have fixed this nomination so that it actually exists fully on the nomination page, rather than {{subst:afd2}} being applied to the daily list instead. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Companies, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Some coverage about the theater company doing stuff over Zoom [19], [20], [21] Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first two are just passing mentions and not sufficient for establishing notability, imo. Mooonswimmer 04:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:From WP:WHYN
    "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. (See the advice below.)"
    Those linked articles (while helpful!) are all about one aspect of TCC being doing zoom productions and when searched for, mostly TCC's own website/Facebook page etc. come up. A question (am a fairly new editor!) - Does that coverage meet the bar for "significant coverage"? If you consider it does, is there then not a presumption that essentially every company with some article written about them online could have its own article on Wikipedia? Would that be consistent with our mission/intent?
    To me, the best yardstick is whether all the available reliable and secondary sources (not those TCC's own website/pages) would enable, consistent with WP:WHYN, a whole article to be written instead of the current few sentences and list? I'd personally struggle to write such an article. Whisky and more (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notable films produced, any coverage is mostly passing mentions. Mooonswimmer 04:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV, and company appears to produce only one production per year, using mostly non-notable directors. Do they produce shows in a noteworthy theatre? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I’ve been able to find or see by searching. Whisky and more (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 20:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pronto. Without better references, this can't be kept. Deb (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway 21 (Greece)[edit]

Motorway 21 (Greece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The road in question is actually part of the EO51 National Road from Ardani to Kastanies since 1963 (source: Ministerial Decision Γ25871/1963 (Q125218116)). There is no evidence that the motorway is under construction: in fact the recent bypasses were upgrades with little remarkable coverage to improve the existing National Road. In addition, the road number does not appear in Ministerial Decision ΔΟΥ/οικ/5776 (archived 2 April 2024), which was an unsuccessful attempt to renumber motorways in Greece. Minoa (talk) 08:21, 2 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! 07:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Mankatha (soundtrack). Liz Read! Talk! 04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilaiyaadu Mankatha[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Can easily be merged with Mankatha (soundtrack). Charliehdb (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:09, 2 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! 07:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway 12 (Greece)[edit]

Motorway 12 (Greece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence that the motorway exists. The road in question is actually part of the EO6 National Road from Volos to Igoumenitsa since 1963 (source: Ministerial Decision Γ25871/1963 (Q125218116)). Even though the number is proposed in Ministerial Decision ΔΟΥ/οικ/5776 (page 2098, archived 2 April 2024), there is not enough information for the proposed road to have their own article. --Minoa (talk) 08:04, 2 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! 07:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motorway 4 (Greece)[edit]

Motorway 4 (Greece) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence that the motorway exists. The road in question is actually part of the EO6 National Road from Volos to Igoumenitsa since 1963 (source: Ministerial Decision Γ25871/1963 (Q125218116)). In addition, the road number does not appear in Ministerial Decision ΔΟΥ/οικ/5776 (archived 2 April 2024), which was an unsuccessful attempt to renumber motorways in Greece. --Minoa (talk) 08:04, 2 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! 07:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 2477[edit]

United Airlines Flight 2477 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event, no WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Rosbif73 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - In the news? Article has possibilities as a "Keep", but more details are needed. This is a recent event. Was it pilot error? Mechanical failure? — Maile (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, given enough time for all the information about this incident to come out, it may be a "keep". As it stands now however, we don't have enough info. Delete the article for now and later on, when the final report comes out, consider reading it. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 12:45, 9 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 05:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian (software)[edit]

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

This software seems to fail the software notability criteria defined here. Although there is significant coverage, it seems to be either by the authors themselves such as the article they published here or by the institute they are affiliated with like this article here. There is some coverage by other sources such as this but it is not really significant coverage. EvilxFish (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although a lot of the arguments were very poor and suffered greatly from WP:VER issues, the awarding of a government prize I believe is enough to satisfy point 4 of the software notability criteria and I do not support the deletion as a consequence EvilxFish (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Member of the jury of French government Open Science prize for Free Research Software:
Author of Brian here. It is definitely notable:
  • It has been cited in thousands of peer reviewed articles (see e.g. my google scholar page https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2HiNqI4AAAAJ&hl=en)
  • It is used in multiple courses around the world to teach neuroscience, most obvious of which being "Neuronal Dynamics", probably the single most well regarded computational neuroscience textbook (https://neuronaldynamics.epfl.ch/)
  • It is downloaded hundreds of times daily (https://pypistats.org/packages/brian2)
  • It recently won a French government Open Science prize (you linked to an article about this in your message)
  • It has over 800 stars on GitHub, putting it in first place in category "computational neuroscience", 6th place in "neuroscience" and 5th place in "spiking neural networks".
  • It is used by multiple other software packages, for example recently Dendrify (https://dendrify.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) which was described in a recent paper in Nature Comms.
Thesamovar (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesamovar: Thank you for the response, I was unaware that it is so widely used, and I must stress I am not a deletionist, I was just unaware of its impact and could not find sources that showed it met the criteria for inclusion for software. Further to the end of showing it is, I just wanted to respond to a few of the points. First you being the author of the package is a WP:VER issue and not relevant. I think by the citations discussed in the first point we are trying to show that it meets point number 1:
It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
I would be grateful if you could share one of those references which show that the software is significant if we want to prove its notability via this path.
As for the textbook I believe this is an attempt to show it meets criteria 2:
It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
In order to show it is significant we therefore need to show that the course teaches the software and not just the course uses the software as part of its instruction. I would be grateful if you could show where this is the case please if we are trying to prove notability from this angle.
I believe the government prize likely satisfies criteria number 4 personally and if this is the case it should not be deleted, I accept full responsibility for missing that, when I noticed the article was written by the institute I only scanned it briefly and missed that detail:
It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability.
A government prize likely qualifies it as technical significance by a reliable source.
As for the github stars and integration into other software packages I do not see this as relevant.EvilxFish (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! With your withdrawal I think it is unanimous for keep so I'll not reply further unless anyone brings up any additional issues. Thesamovar (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User of Brian here. It is definitely notable:
  • As a student of neuroscience, I have personally learnt, taught, and used Brian simulator in my daily life for years, across four universities and research institutions in four countries - India, Switzerland, England, and France.
  • The original Brian simulator paper and Brian 2 papers have been cited over 1000 times, and definitely not just by the authors themselves, as claimed, see here and here.
  • It is well maintained and active as a community of users.
Sharbatc (talk) 11:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharbatc: Thank for you the response, unfortunately the first bullet point is a WP:VER issue unless you can show using reliable sources that the software is taught. As for the second I don't think the software criteria covers number of citations but if there are multiple reviews of the software from reliable sources (not just a trivial mention) that would qualify it. The well maintained is unfortunately not part of the acceptance criteria. EvilxFish (talk) 02:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This software is widely used in computational neuroscience, as can be seen by it being taught and used alongside other notable software at international courses in this area, e.g., https://groups.oist.jp/cws/event/ocnc2023 and https://www.nengo.ai/summer-school/ Tfburns (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tfburns: neither of the links show that the software is taught as part of the courses only that it is used as part of the course. But I do think it goes some way to show it is widely used which may help prove one of the 4 criteria for software notability. EvilxFish (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is definitely a notable and high-quality software, which still works and is being developed. It is a popular tool in computational neuroscience, both research and teaching. I do not see any reason for the article on Brian to be deleted; on the contrary.
(If it matters to anyone, I declare I have no working relationship with the authors, nor other conflict of interest.) Tomekjak (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomekjak: Simply stating it is notable does not make it so, nor does the fact that the software still works and is being developed. Popularity is difficult to prove which is why the notability criteria is very specific in what classifies it as notable. Please check the notability criteria for software. EvilxFish (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This package is the canonical package of its kind for simulating spiking neural nets, widely used for both education and research. Certainly notable. Deleting this would be deletionism run amok, dont let ur trigger finger get too itchy. Sneakers-the-rat (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sneakers-the-rat: I assure you I am not "letting my trigger finger get too itchy". The whole point of these discussions is so someone who may not be too familiar with something after their own investigation can put forward the question of whether or not a particular article should be included based on wikipedia criteria. Those who are then more familiar with the area can also chime in and either agree or in this case disagree, for the most part so far, with the deletion of an article. EvilxFish (talk) 02:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking for sources, I think there's a review in a book here. It's hard to search for because it mostly turns up articles including people named Brian. @Sneakers-the-rat says it's a canonical package for spiking neural nets, so maybe that's in the book, if anyone can access it?
OIST appears to teach it (students are taught to do neuroscience using it, according to the site): self-published but I think that's valid for citing the existence of courses teaching it in terms of reliability.
Nengo I'm not sure counts: participants are taught to use "their favorite simulator." I feel like this would be a source for Brian being a significant package, but it's self-published. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable. In addition to Dendrify cited above, I've built a sizable piece of software tightly integrated with Brian as well: https://cleosim.readthedocs.io/ Kylej13 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Nippon Airways Flight 1182[edit]

All Nippon Airways Flight 1182 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the mill incident, no WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shot of ShnaggyHose[edit]

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

WP:SPORTSKEEDA is already marked as a WP:GUNREL source; topic does not appear to meet WP:GNG. PK-WIKI (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Internet memes are rarely encyclopedically notable. This particular one is far from meeting WP:GNG. Mooonswimmer 04:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the seemingly unanimous opinion here. The mug shot alone does not meet WP:GNG. None of the sources pertaining to the mug shot are reliable. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 21:37, 15 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 American Professional Football League. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Worth Regulators[edit]

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

Article is about a short lived semi-pro sports team with no claim to notability. Searches found routine coverage but doesn't establish anything more than their existence. Article remains unsourced since it's creation in 2007. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas. -- D'n'B-t -- 06:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to American Professional Football League. Of the 16 hits on ProQuest for "Fort Worth Regulators", most are brief mentions about how they folded as a team. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd question a Redirect, as a reader searching for "Fort Worth Regulators" could just as easily be looking for information on People Who Deal With Regulations in the city of Fort Worth (eg to find out who regulates Fridges and Milk) as to be looking for a defunct football team. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Cielquiparle. My search of Newspapers.com failed to turn up SIGCOV to support a stand-alone article. However, I did find many references to the team in routine coverage, such that a redirect makes sense. (I don't see a sound reason to reject the redirect, as generalized searches for "regulators" in Forth Worth doesn't seem likely and there is no Wikipedia article on regulators based there.) Cbl62 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. I find DandelionAndBurdock's concern about redirecting to be unnecessary, but it can be addressed by adding a hatnote to an article on a regulatory agency in that area, if such an article exists. Frank Anchor 14:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to President of the Church. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet, seer, and revelator[edit]

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

The article only has a primary reference and a reference from the church itself. I couldn't find any independent secondary sources about the topic. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Econophysics. Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum economics[edit]

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

WP:Undue, not notable. Fringe theory and a term not used by real economists. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources cited should be sufficient to establish notability, and many of them do use the term "quantum economics". This is a WP:FRINGE topic, however, so the article needs to be significantly trimmed down and the fringe angle made much more evident. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Econophysics. No reference shows that "quantum economics" is an emerging field. The only secondary ref I found calls it "quantum econophysics". @WeirdNAnnoyed would you agree to merge? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I could agree to a selective merge. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to emerging field, there is a new journal called Quantum Economics and Finance. Reference added.--Sjm3 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very selective merge as suggested above. This isn't one fringe topic; it's a few different fringe topics that use the same words. XOR'easter (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge. This seems reasonable. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a developing area with a new journal from Sage, Quantum Economics and Finance. The editorial and advisory boards contain a number of experts from economics and quantitative finance.--Sjm3 (talk) 22:42, 15 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! 03:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K51GK[edit]

K51GK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook Christian translator with most programming off the bird. Even the smattering of local church services is not enough. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: When the only non-FCC sources are passing mentions in articles about owner Cornerstone Faith Center, there's only so much that we can say — and no reason to retain any of it. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 11 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! 03:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSXC-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 9 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. Consensus reached. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Ahono[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Kenya women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:18, 9 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! 20:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilis Balita[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2011. No good references from GNews, GSearch and GNews Archives. There is a Tagalog newspaper article announcing its creation but that's it. Alternatively, redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23. --Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:37, 2 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, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurealis Award for Best Fantasy Short Story[edit]

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

No matter how much I like this this article, WP:ARTN applies. It lacks independent sources and seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. If we cannot find better sources, I feel this may need to go. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:45, 25 March 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) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:I have already voted Keep but have just edited the article with one sentence and more references to show that the award is acknowledged and respected by the publishing industry and reviewers and listed on various genre databases. I don't think this article should be deleted by itself but should be considered in the context of all the Aurealis award articles. The short story award is just one category but there are other Aurealis award articles for other award categories such as novels. So there is an alternative to merge them all into one article for the Aurealis Award but with sections for the different award categories.LPascal (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on merging into a parent article, as suggested above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It does not make sense to me to merge into the parent article. It would become a massive article with listing all the award winners. Is there a reason this particular Aurealis Award was nominated and not the other awards? Tbennert (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zsuzsanna Sirokay[edit]

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

This BLP article has remained unsourced since its creation in 2007. Had it been written later, it would have been subject to WP:BLP proposed deletion. No significant sources can be found about this classical pianist. All sources found include run-of-the-mill concert announcements, etc. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Hungary, and Switzerland. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I bet good sources can be found! Heck, if she was interviewed by the SRF as seen here then there is something to her. I see mentions from sites in Finland and the Netherlands. I'm sure a thorough search will bring something up. Might get around to it. I also select this as an example. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the argument is fallacious as sources have been there since the beginning. It is just back in this time footnotes were optional. Anyway I have added two footnotes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Graeme Bartlett: The sources which have existed since the article were created are not evidence of notability, they are merely evidence of existence. The article was created in 2007 with no sources other than the statement "self-made translation from de.wiki". The de.wiki article as of 2007 had no sources. The sources that exist now are merely discogs listings and catalog listings, and one note that she was a finalist in a competition. Yes, she has recorded music. Yes, she has competed internationally. None of this rises to the level of notability required by Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has adequate sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Streaming sites, her website, that's about all I can find. Nothing in Gnews or Scholar. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 18 March 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) 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I was thinking of a "sources likely to exist" vote based on her age and the language barrier, but honestly I'm not sure someone with her resume would actually have coverage in offline sources. I'm reminded of Draft:Janita Byars, which I worked on but ultimately quit due to only being able to find WP:NEWSPRIMARY and insignificant coverage. Mach61 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And no, the existing sources don't establish notability Mach61 17:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: References used in the article are incredibly weak and can't even really be called coverage InDimensional (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NMUSIC. Here are reviews of her concerts from the 1970s and '80s: Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Daily Telegraph again, Guardian again. If I can find these at 40-50 years remove, there's likely more in specialty publications of the time, which are not as accessible as major newspapers. Jfire (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The article's contents do not establish notability. Sources range from weak to inappropriate. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:20, 9 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, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep irrespective of the article's contents Jfire has identified reliable sources reviews of her work in The Guardian (2 pieces) and The Daily Telegraph (2pieces) so WP:GNG is passed in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User Jfire has provided valid new sources that will contribute to her notability. RolandSimon (talk) 21:59, 14 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 01:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Karl Neumann[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I could find zero reliable, in-depth sources. Most of the references link to other Wikipedia articles. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 01:33, 9 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 01:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Rolfe (singer)[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability for the subject aside from only one award with multiple unsourced statements, citing two Wikipedia articles which cannot be done, a video interview and a print interview with the subject without using any third-party independent reliable sources. The creator of this article (who has since been blocked for abusing multiple accounts) also included on their user page here that they were "only here to add a David Rolfe page.", potentially indicating they created it to promote the subject due to their connections to the Pokemon franchise said subject has worked on. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot reliably be improved as further coverage is nonexistent. Samoht27 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading has lead me to see various points of article contain unsourced claims and information. This further strengthens the case for Deletion. Samoht27 (talk) 06:42, 15 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 WZXX as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLOG (FM)[edit]

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

Zero secondary sources, sourced only to government databases. Fails WP:GNG. Defunct radio station licensed to community of less than 300 people. AusLondonder (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As I mentioned in my seconding of the PROD (someone else contested it), this was evidently the nominal primary station for a national, albeit modest, network of low-power translator stations (it used to have more than the three still listed), but there probably was never any sufficient coverage of even that for our purposes. A remnant of the looser "standards" of 2008 where entirely-database-based articles could slip under the radar and not get removed quickly as might happen today. (The contesting was apparently related to a redirect from WKIH, a co-owned station in Georgia, but as that station is not mentioned in this article I've retargeted WKIH to a list that does mention that particular station.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WZXX There are at least four separate articles counting this one about stations owned by Radio by Grace which all seem to have the same program schedule but a different 'source' for programming, including KRBG and KBZD, and whose only main difference seems to be HD Radio subchannel programming; these could do with being merged into one article, but for this one, it should be briefly mentioned in the article for its former source station. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not certain any of those articles meet notability requirements. Two of them don't even have any sources other than databases. AusLondonder (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:52, 1 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! 01:15, 9 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. Keeping after improvements made to article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonna Doolittle Hoppes[edit]

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

Fails Notability as documented by other editors. I had hoped to improve this article to better meet Notability guidelines but I was unable to do so. I am the creator of this article. Skeet Shooter (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have added in multiple reviews of Hoppes' first book, and one for her second book. I removed the third, 'in preparation' book as I find no evidence it was published. When the reviews of her books is combined with coverage of her work, I think the combination leans towards keep. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From what I can tell, Hoppes meets item #3 of WP:AUTHOR: she has created "significant or well-known work or collective body of work" (her oral histories and biographies) and her work is the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (article has references to the San Antonio Express-News, the Library Journal, as well as multiple military publications and websites). One thing I am missing though, where is the historical discussion? I saw one section on the talk page, is there more somewhere? Thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 23:32, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_9&oldid=1219301401"