Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 11	February 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Spano[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:N. popodameron ⁠talk 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Florida. popodameron ⁠talk 23:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything about a musician with this name; first source is more about the St Patrick's Day event than this person. Rest are about as non-helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely does not pass in terms of notability, sourcing, or overall quality. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only coverage I am able to find that is not in the article is a trivial mention in The Palm Beach Post. There is indeed a Florida-based percussionist who matches this article's description, but I don't think that person meets WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JustGarciaHill.org[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Some sources, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N. 2014 AfD was no consensus due to low participation. Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article appears to be the only significant coverage of the website. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are about a dozen mentions of the site in journals but nothing extensive, most just name drops. This is typical [1]. It's just not enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 13 February 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 14:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants at the Battle of Badr[edit]

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

unsourced mess of a list that admits it's incomplete. blow it up. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle of Badr. A bit messy, but still not a good reason to delete the article. Plus the battle is already notable. Draftification can be an alternative based on what you gave. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Military, Islam, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of value in this article, just a whole lot of non-notable names, even the blue linked articles are very questionable. Ajf773 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it were possible for such a list to be reliably sourced (which it clearly isn't currently, and almost certainly never could be), there is nothing inherent in mere participation in a battle that would justify it under Wikipedia notability criteria. Were such lists permitted, we could potentially end up with monstrosities like a List of participants at the Battle of Stalingrad with entries running into the millions. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Brachy0008. Shankargb (talk) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, would be more useful to include in the battle of Badr page via a "participants" section or something like that rather then outright deletion. Noorullah (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A question for those proposing a merge. What source are you suggesting should be cited? Even if a list of this length were to be appropriate (I contend that it isn't), we cannot add it without proper sourcing meeting WP:RS requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump Reply At the bottom of the article, there seems to be a cited list of the individuals who participated, so that could serve as a source if it complies with WP:RS. Noorullah (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two references and neither reliable. References for history pages need to be from a scholarly literature. The page fails wp:n. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to discuss the merits of merging vs deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've got to agree with the main points stated above. Merely being in a battle doesn't merit a list article. Merging isn't appropriate, because there's nothing to merge: a reliable source, currently lacking, is required for each item to be merged. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've also got to agree with the main points above, merely being in a battle doesn't give an individual any notability, it feels very WP:COOKIE to include every person, and as AndyTheGrump said, articles listing the participants at other battle would run into the millions. It would be little more than a database. Shaws username . talk . 00:40, 13 February 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. ✗plicit 14:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richards Heuer[edit]

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

This is a heavily WP:REFBOMBed WP:FANCRUFT article on a CIA analyst. Of the 13 sources:
- 3 are non-RS (a paid obit on legacy.com, the webpage of a company called ctovision.com, an Amazon author page listing)
- 4 are publications written by the subject of the article itself
- 1 is WP:PRIMARY - a collection of released documents on a U.S. Government website
- The remaining 5 simply don't mention the subject of the article at all
A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com and Google Books fails to find anything to redeem it. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Military, Psychology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am satisfied from [2] that the subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His top two books are highly cited, which verifies the statement that he's a "giant in the field of analysis" in the CIA Studies in Intelligence obit mentioned above (which is not WP:PRIMARY—it's a peer-reviewed academic journal), so he seems to be notable per WP:ACADEMIC#C1. I agree this barely passes notability guidelines, but remember that intelligence analysis is not a high-profile world! Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 12 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baramati district[edit]

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

Not only I could not find anything about it, according to the subpar content of the article, it was actually a "proposed" district that never came to be. Not notable. Aintabli (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Maharashtra. Aintabli (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles, because they are all part of a series of unsourced/poorly-sourced creations from 2012 revolving around proposed districts in India:

Aintabli (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree to deletion of Baramati district and all nominated pages. There is no significant coverage on these districts. One source on the Baramati district fails to open and many nominated pages do not even have any sources linked. They all fail notability. RangersRus (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all fail WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG.S0091 (talk) 15:14, 18 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draim[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant coverage whatsoever, much less coverage that meets WP:CORP. The company's only product, Draim arena, is already at AfD and likely to be deleted on notability grounds as well, so merging is not a viable AtD. Jfire (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no good refs. No relevance at least not enough to warrant an article as of today.BabbaQ (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources in Swedish news archives at all and no good sourcing online. AlexandraAVX (talk) 10:25, 17 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Run[edit]

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

I initially WP:PRODed this with the following rationale: "Non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM that fails the WP:GNG. Neither of the included references are reliable sources, and searches did not turn up any coverage in reliable sources that discusses this term in sense that it is described here." However, I failed to notice that it had already been PRODed shortly after its creation in 2015, and thus would need to go to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Sports. Rorshacma (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only reliable source that I could find with it was this article from CBS news, except it's only used there as the title of a self-published youtube video. I'd also note that it doesn't even appear on the longboarding article. Shaws username . talk . 21:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch brings up a ton of youtube videos, but I don't see any use of the term in RS like books or news items. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 13 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mannadiyar[edit]

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

WP:TNT The article currently presents no reliable third-party sources to justify its content, futher (as seen in article history) this is a WP:COATRACK of three separate topics Mannadiar (redirects here now): a Nair title, Mannadiyar a caste in Kerala (which this article started as) and Mandradiar: a Kongu Vellalar title (which this article has been hijacked into). Considering the edit wars and kerffufle which the conflation of these three distinct topics has resulted into here i.e. a poor article with no legs to stand on, this should be blown up. Anyone who wants to make an article on any of these topics should start anew (better be with a disambiguating title). Gotitbro (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, India, and Kerala. Gotitbro (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that any of these possible topics are notable, so I'm not sure this is a WP:TNT delete so much as a regular-old "it just isn't a notable topic" delete. Existing similar articles we have (eg Madampi (Nair title)) tend to be very poorly sourced. I've seen several of these come through AfC and don't believe I've ever seen one accepted. They end up being fought over by various POV-pushing editors, to no obvious end. If someone has seen otherwise, please ping me, I'd love to know. I know our notability guidelines tend towards "typically topics like x are found to be notable" rather than "typically topics like y are found to not be notable", but... -- asilvering (talk) 22:04, 19 February 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 Tulsipur, Dang#Education as preferred WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorkha Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL before search does not yield any results ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nepal. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tulsipur, Dang#Education where the school is already mentioned. Sources not found to establish notability. Rupples (talk) 06:49, 16 February 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 10:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Dombroski[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the 6 references, 4 are brief items by his university (with two being dead links), one (Bloomberg) has no content other than his title. And the best of the 6 (Ft. Worth) is just an announcement with a short interview. As a result, the content is just a few resume type items. (Author is blocked for improper multiple accounts.) North8000 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only secondary sources I could find were already in the article. A Bloomberg profile that is only his name and position, and Fort Worth Buisness article that just about him, don't really class as significant coverage. Shaws username . talk . 21:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he likes dinosaurs [3], with a brief mention here [4], but these are not useful for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 13 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Juggalo Championship Wrestling personnel[edit]

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

Same arguments as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Wrestling Alliance personnel. JCW is a small promotion and promotes a few shows per year. There is no website, so no source for a company roster. Most sources are from 2011. No way to verify these wrestlers are under contract with JCW. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please does not include Pro wrestling into martial arts. It is not a martial art. Lethweimaster (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the roster of JCW could be somewhat verified using Cagematch.net (a wrestling database listed as part of Wikipedia:PW/RS) I am inclined to agree with the OP that list is superfluous. OP is correct to point out that JCW runs sporadically and is not one of the most notable promotions in it's country. Many of the listed performers do not have their own articles, which makes them not notable (WP:BIO), and damages the usefulness of the list.

Many similar "List of wrestling personnel" articles have been deleted as part of a broader recent effort by Wikipedia:PW to adhere to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The deletion of this article would gel with that effort. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of this topic. Juggalo appears to be a minor organization whose article could well be considered for AfD. A list of their employees, gleaned from their own website, doesn't strike me as "encyclopedic". I didn't see any independent sources that discuss or refer to this topic/list. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 19 February 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 per the sourcing identified during the discussion Star Mississippi 22:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chrome Cranks[edit]

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

To quote my PROD which was removed:

Found a handful of appearances in SLUG Magazine ([5][6][7][8]) but nothing else of much use. It is my understanding that even with this much coverage, the fact that it all comes from one source means it doesn't count as multiple sources. Or something like that. Regardless, I see no other signs of notability that aren't themselves unsourced.

PROD was removed due to a >10-year-old PROD which was undone (still a silly rule but so be it), so now we're here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, New York, and Ohio. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough coverage for an article; the musical group is discussed here [9], but that's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some mention in Billboard from the link above for Gbooks [10], and NJ.com [11]... Are we at BASIC with many trivial mentions? Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NJ.com is good, the other is too brief. Still bare minimum at best. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Bert, I guess, unless someone wants to add stuff. PQ shows 89 results (for me), but most appear to be concert listings and mentions of the band touring with Mudhoney, Jon Spencer, etc. There appear to be a few longer things--Billboard, Melody Maker, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Toronto Star, among others, but I can't read full text for everything. Newspapers.com and Newsbank (which WP doesn't subscribe to) often pick up the non-PQ stuff for '90s newspapers. Caro7200 (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there seems to be enough coverage for WP:GNG with Slug magazine, the sources named by Caro7200, the NJ.com and I also found a staff written bio at AllMusic here where there are also five staff written album reviews linked in the discography section, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, there's something. Dunno how I missed the AllMusic page, but that should be plenty. I'm willing to withdraw for that. Thanks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200, @Oaktree b, the nom wants to withdraw. Does Atlantic306's source change your minds? -- asilvering (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it's better now that we've uncovered those Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 19 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zamindars of Kanihati[edit]

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

Mostly a vanity page and largely consists of WP:SYNTHESIS. Very little sources to support notability claims and some citations in the article make no mention of the family. As per WP:BIOFAMILY, notability of one person is not sufficient for the entire family. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 12 February 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 10:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylheti calendar[edit]

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

Fictional calendar with not a single source to prove its existence. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and India. Jaunpurzada (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 12 February 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 Saw (franchise)#Short films. Star Mississippi 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Scott Tibbs Documentary[edit]

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

This "short film" has no third party coverage in reliable sources. It was a extra feature on the "Saw II: Unrated Special Edition" DVD. Should be redirected/merged to Saw (franchise)#Short films at least. Mike Allen 18:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mike Allen 18:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Saw (franchise) as article does not appear to meet WP:NFO. Owen250708 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saw (franchise)#Short films, per nom. Merge would be extremely WP:UNDUE. -- asilvering (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Chatterjee[edit]

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

The subject appears to have played minor roles in major productions. However, despite my efforts, I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable sources. As a result, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, suggesting that it may be too soon to have an article about them. GSS ^💬 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. GSS ^💬 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and WP:WAIT for them to have a break, methinks. There's a good chance of him eventually being notable, so, it should be left as a draft until (if) it happens. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable secondary parts in a few films, not meeting ACTOR. I wouldn't bother sending this to draft, nothing to indicate this is a rising star. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could be speedy deleted as A7 Tehonk (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources aren't enough to show WP:NACTOR being met Ravensfire (talk) 22:39, 17 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boinga[edit]

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

Unverifiable, sources in article often don't even contain the word "Boinga", e.g. this source or this source or a more recent one like this. Fram (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Bangladesh, India, and Assam. Fram (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it is verifiable, it is dictionary, not encyclopedic content: a word etymology and senses. Cnilep (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks and sounds like a WP:HOAX. Chaipau (talk) 21:16, 19 February 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 14:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuietRock[edit]

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

Advertisement RemotelyInterested (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Haven't checked notability yet but the article's tone is definitely not so bad that it needs to be deleted for it. Mach61 (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, sources are not significant in their coverage or are just product listings or routine PR sources. Searches find product listings as well. Promotional in tone and borderline WP:G11 v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 22:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sounds promotional and fails CORP notability The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proforce Limited[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NCORP. Press is mostly press-releases BoraVoro (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Companies, Transportation, and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. C. John[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable and fails verifiability. Based on only one source that is a primary source. Clearly fails WP:BLPSPS. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Initials are too common to be able to filter out the results. What's used now is one primary source, I don't see GNG as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Kerala, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too vague and too old to come up with any verification. The only source is an external link to the subject's own television station. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amas–Darbhanga Expressway[edit]

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

It seems to be planned rather than existing, and although there are mentions, I am not convinced it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bihar. Skynxnex (talk) 14:52, 12 February 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 by Bishonen. ✗plicit 14:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Hirai Atram[edit]

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

No information on the subject in reliable WP:HISTRS compliant sources. Only mention in a handful news sources like the one sourced in the article. News sources are not enough for articles pertaining to history, let alone the WP:Notability of the subject. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be yet another fabrication. Will look for the sources but voting for delete for now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, indistinguishable from a hoax. - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 14:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if not a hoax, it's worth TNTing. Jebiguess (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor page which clearly is self opinionated, without any references. One and only reference on the article ends with 404 error. RangersRus (talk) 17:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RangersRus: The article creator apparently had a problem linking the reference. The correct URL → [12] does mention the subject, but this is a news article, and I wasn't able to find much about her in RS, let alone WP:HISTRS. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correct URL and after going through it, vote still remains the same as I am with you that this subject's sources needs to be backed by reliable scholarly research. The News article is not reliable enough to base the article on. RangersRus (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After being rejected for mainspace for lack of sourcing and moved to draft space by Liz, the creator Yamanhunyaar simply recreated the article again in mainspace. That is disruptive, and I have speedy deleted it and blocked the creator, who has done more disruption than just this (compare this ANI thread). Bishonen | tålk 01:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bomdila Monastery[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Buddhism, and Arunachal Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 14:50, 12 February 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 Simon Ekpa. I will protect the redirect to stop disruption. Star Mississippi 22:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Liberation Army[edit]

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

The page in question may meet notability but I don't think it's ready for a stand alone page. Pointing WP: REDIRECT to Simon Ekpa. Otuọcha (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nigeria. Otuọcha (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon Ekpa Otuọcha (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also this thread, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biafra Republic Government in Exile. Any relation? Otuọcha (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, part of a series of articles on things founded by / announced by Simon Ekpa, described here as "king of fake news". See e.g. Biafra Republic Government in Exile/Biafran Government in Exile, deleted multiple times between May 2023 and today. A redirect and short paragraph is sufficient until this 100,000 man "army" verifiably materializes. Fram (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Because redirects are costly. We already have two SPAs who will ignore the consensus of this AfD and will restore the content regardless. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two SPAs have just been blocked for sockpuppetry. Wikishovel (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just declare Simon Ekpa a Contentious topic? Please? WP:ARBHORN isn't quite close enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, some of the sources may be usable for the Ekpa-article, the "thing" is mentioned in perhaps RS-ish sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon Ekpa per (most) posts above. Searching for mentions of the group following its "launch" in October, there is coverage in RS of a killing attributed to the group in Imo State in November.[13][14]. But for now it's mostly reports of angry declarations by Ekpa, and pleas by IPOB for the govt to stop bombing them, saying that the groups aren't connected. Wikishovel (talk) 14:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Simon Ekpa: Per Wikishovel above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stand alone page: Hello everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia. I suggest that this article can be a stand alone page as the groups violent activities increases in the Region as well as their suspected involvement in many killings across the region, is important to make the page a stand alone in other to reach a wider audience who actually doesn't know what the group are all about while their activities will continue to be updated here on wiki. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.113.63.52 (talk) 05:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I opine that the article should be classified as Stub hence the subject matter is still unfolding. If we end up making it a redirect, it may disturb in the future as the article. The military organization was just established in 2023 and will keep on expanding. Whether in has Wikipedia notability status, yes it has per se other Wikipedia Liberation Armies in history that fought during the cause of independence. see some here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

The article has relatable RS which proves Biafra Liberation Army exists in real-life. See list of RS: Tracking terrorism, Guardian news, Yle News, New Telegraph, People's daily, Nigerian Pilot,Vanguard News, Arete Africa, Independent NG, Daily Post

It took me time to locate this sources and I assume good faith.

I have volunteered to modify, rewrite the article and make it more encyclopedic. I earnestly wish to see Key Administrators participate in this regard and I hope this will definitely help the situation at hand.

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Fugabus (talk) 11:53, 18 February 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 local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bramblefields[edit]

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

article doesn't establish notability (WP:N) KurtsWorld96 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/nature-reserves-places-visit-cambridge-16163304, by a Reach PLC WWW site, which to be honest looks to me like filler on a slow news day when the local tourist board is complaining. I haven't found much else, outwith government WWW sites of course. The search engines match on a local wildlife magazine that I cannot access, if anyone with better access wants to check that out. Uncle G (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a local nature reserve which is a statutory designation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale I don't think a statutory designation as a local nature reserve gives presumed notability — a national designation might. What notability guideline are you basing your comment on? Rupples (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples: WP:GEOFEAT says "of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable". Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this reserve's status as a local reserve is sufficient to guarantee notability. I'm not sure that it has any special protection beyond the fact the council decided that this bit of former farmland and allotment-space was better managed as a nature-friendly area. It hasn't got much history, and not much has been written about it. It just isn't in the same league as national reserves such as Wicken fen or Monks Wood, or even other local settings such as Paradise Local Nature Reserve, a location that has a long history and has been written about. In many ways, Bramblefields is served adequately by its entry in List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. But I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of deleting it. Before I found the list, my feeling was that the minor reserves of Cambridge would better be served by amalgamation into one narrative article about the lot, but this one is caught between a world of individual mini-stubs and a table that makes it very hard to expand on an individual reserve if information appears. If it does get deleted, I would not have any objection to it being re-created if someone finds useful things to say about it. Given its Cambridge location, it's quite likely it'll attract some local historian at some point in the future. If we do delete it, I'm worried someone will spot a red-link in the list article and remove it from there, which I think would be unhelpful to our readers. Elemimele (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. It's reasonably covered there, and there's not a lot else to say about it. Should someone study and write the place up a bit better, then editors can easily restore, expand, and cite the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire. Agree a redirect is the answer here as there's insufficient coverage to pass the GNG and I don't think it has presumed notability. Didn't want to delete so grateful to Elemimele for coming up with a suitable redirect target, and I echo the points made. Rupples (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of local nature reserves in Cambridgeshire per above rationale - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 14:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas Vasipov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ilyas Vasipov

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

Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG as a person "influenced a whole generation of St. Petersburg journalists" and the publisher of an iconic newspaper. Evilfreethinker (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 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. This does not preclude a rename into an article about the trial and subsequent legislation incorporating information ab out the couple. Star Mississippi 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Sharen Gravelle[edit]

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

Clear WP:BLP1E case, so not notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, United States of America, and Ohio. UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The trial gained international attention and brought many inadequacies of the adoption services systems in Ohio to the fore. Strongly suggests that this is not a WP:BLP1E case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may imply the case is notable, but not these people. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is clearly about these people! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you just restructure instead of delete in that case, usually. That's how BLP1E issues are usually solved, if there isn't already an article on the event, convert it to be on the event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's likely a wiki article that could be written about the law that was passed, not about this pair. A two year sentence isn't really notable (rather sad that's all they got in my eyes), but still doesn't affect their notability. They could be worked into an article about the new state law, or Adoption in Ohio or something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but retarget to either an article that incorporates content on broader laws that were passed, or a more event/case focused article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as this case in very infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidgoodheart: That is not a policy-based argument. What you are arguing for is WP:INHERIT, which is explicitly a disallowed deletion argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
INHERIT implies that there is an article on this case: there isn't. So if the case is notable just reconfigure it. The complaint is BLP1E, and the way to solve that is restructuring the article, not deleting. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability requires sustained SIGCOV of a topic, and this couple has not received it. Coverage of the case may warrant a merge into another article though.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, it seems that there is sigcov from different sources in the years following this. NPR, CBS-AP. However, I agree with others that the article should be reframed to focus on the case and not its perpetrators. Lettlre (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - per sigcov. Pretty clear this has remained in the public eye. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and eventify. The core thing that has lasting notability here is more the abuse case than the people itself, and we don't presently have an article on the abuse case. Rather than having a pseudo-bio, it would be better to cover the event (which has lasting notability due to the effects on subsequent legislation) than the couple, in line with WP:1E (The general rule is to cover the event). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:43, 19 February 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. ✗plicit 14:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Palay Khan[edit]

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

Lacking a source and not very well-known. Historianfox (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hits seem to be only about the film with the same name, nothing found for a person. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Terrible article, but I should have thought that anyone who was deemed notable enough to have both a biopic and a 13-part biographical TV series made about them was notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've given the depictions a minor rewrite, and added a couple of sources on the 1986 film and 1990 TV series based on Palay Khan (just to prove that those depictions of him which allow him to qualify as 'notable' exist). I will admit that I am struggling to find a source on the man himself (best I've found so far was https://pashtunhistory.com/palay-shah-khosti/, but it seems a little bit too WP:SPS to cite in the article), but there might be some half-decent non-english sources out there. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Possibly notable. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. There are films (Indian and Pakistani), TV series, and novel based on his story.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZTC-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG primarily due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources. Article was kept in a 2011 AfD but notability thresholds have changed significantly since then. Let'srun (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 03:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: It at least looks like there were some attempts at some semblance of local programming in the "Bay 63" K63EN days, but unless significant coverage in reliable sources to verify any of this surfaces, it won't count for much here. (But it's enough to add that "weak" qualifier; that still distinguishes this from the numerous LPTVs that never attempted any non-national programming.) The first nomination was definitely a conflict between enforcing what would now be seen as the "proper" GNG and the overpresumption of notability seen in pre-2021 versions of NMEDIA/BROADCAST; under the looser "standards" of that era, that generally didn't lead to many deletions, but Wikipedia and its inclusion standards have evolved since then. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There is indeed an article: "After 12 years in works, Channel 63 hits air tonight", San Diego Union-Tribune 10/16/92, and there is a longer article in 1993 from the Los Angeles Times that mostly covers the station's attempts to spotlight gay sex in Balboa Park. (I kid you not.) The trail does dry up hard after the 90s, but... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 12 February 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geographia Map Company[edit]

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

Subject lacks the WP:ORGSIG to meet the WP:NCORP. The only source currently in the article only briefly covers this company, and I couldn't find much else beyond brief mentions, non-RS, and some letters to the editor with promotional language to boot, nothing to establish notability. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Geography, New Jersey, and New York. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to flawed WP:BEFORE nomination. I have begun the process of adding reliable sources for this article—which involves a company that has been active on two continents for over a century—and its founder, Alexander Gross. StonyBrook _babble 15:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment venerable, renowned company: "A list and brief history of London Atlases". thehunthouse.com. Retrieved January 29, 2024. Geographia Ltd., was founded in 1911 by the Hungarian Alexander Gross (1879-1958). Originally "Geographia" Designing & Publishing Co. Ltd., of 33 Strand the firm produced street maps of towns and cities all over the world until being absorbed by Collins Bartholomew in about 1987. From 1923 to at least 1925 the company was called "Geographia (1923) Ltd.". Djflem (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage of Geographia is available in books on the more notable daughter of Alexander Gross, Phyllis Pearsall. For example:

Hartley, Sarah (2002). "Chapter 4: Geographia: Marking Out the Future". Mrs P's journey : the remarkable story of the woman who created the A-Z map. Pocket Books. pp. 27–37. ISBN 978-0-7434-0876-9.
Ross, Val (2003). "Chapter 12: The Mapmaker and Her Business". The road to there : mapmakers and their stories. Internet Archive. Tundra Books. pp. 115–123. ISBN 978-0-88776-621-3.

Additional coverage includes the following newspaper articles: [15], [16], [17], [18]. Jfire (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY. In-depth coverage provided and article improved. S0091 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 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 10:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chilean Uruguayans[edit]

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

This seems trivial/WP:MILL and not like a notable intersection of nationalities. The group is tiny at 1,682 people. Two or three "notable people" are footballers who happened to play a couple of years in another country, which does not contribute to the constitution of a diaspora. The article is one of many offshoots of former attempts to create "foreign relations" pages between every conceiveable combinations of countries, and ethnicity pages intersecting every nation on earth. Geschichte (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chile and Uruguay. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added further notable Chilean Uruguayans who have lived most or the whole of their careers in Uruguay, including references.--Fadesga (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability as a group is WP:NOTINHERITED from individuals Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 5 February 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, NotAGenious (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find it impossible to regard this as a notable topic. (I say this as someone married to a Chilean and with Uruguayan friends.) Athel cb (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the secondary sources given are actually centered on this group. If it numbers less than 2,000 people, it is probable that there's not much to say about it. Place Clichy (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization - see WP:CROSSCAT. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:38, 17 February 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 as to whether to retain it or merge it. However a consensus to delete is not going to emerge, so this discussion can continue on the Talk. Star Mississippi 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Do I Have to Do? (Stabbing Westward song)[edit]

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

Non notable song Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Wither Blister Burn & Peel. Although it charted and was a break-out hit for Stabbing Westward, the single did not receive any significant coverage independent of the album or band that I could find. Jfire (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I know charting isn't everything but this song charted on multiple charts, including hitting #7 on one of them. It's one of those songs where, logistically speaking, it's pretty much a given that there's sources locked away in print media because the song was released in the 1990s. Sergecross73 msg me 02:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your approach lacks common sense. How does a song reach the top ten of two separate genre charts, crossover into the all-genre chart, and not get any third party coverage? It's an exceedingly unlikely scenario. The song still gets played on the radio today, decades after its release. It's hit radio syndication. This is absolutely not the sort of mundane, every day song NSONGS was created to prevent from having its own article. And while we're on the topic of BURDEN, what about you? Your nomination itself is nothing more than an argument to avoid at AFD. I have serious doubts about your BEFORE search. Especially considering your entire nomination was simply three words. Sergecross73 msg me 19:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Reply - WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Incredibly disappointing (and telling) response to be questioned about WP:ATA, WP:BEFORE, and the general implausibility of what you're suggesting. Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The song at least got coverage here. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good find! This is the sort of thing I'm talking about above. This sort of coverage was commonplace in print media back then, in the same way Loudwire and Blabbermouth.net would write an article about it if they had broken out with a popular rock single in 2023. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This physical Billboard magazine article indicates that this song was the 29th popular rock song of all of 1996 in the US. That's a big feat. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 16 February 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 10:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Pura Sanchar FM Baitadi[edit]

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

Did not revel any notable articles related to the topic in English or in native language (रेडियो पुरा समाचार बैतडी). Could not find link to its official website or social media page. nirmal (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 12 February 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 11:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W34EY-D[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. While the subject did survive a 2020 AfD, it was under a looser set of notability criteria for television stations than we have today, and the bulk AfD it survived last year was more about some other stations in it that were notable than this one itself. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Let'srun (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A run-of-the-mill 3ABN station turned a run-of-the-mill HC2/Innovate station with no local content, undoubtedly without any significant coverage at any time. The first nomination was in that "transition" period where the walls were (very) slowly starting to close in on the overpresumption of notability for broadcast stations, but before the 2021 RfC that established that there was no wider consensus for NMEDIA being anything more than an essay that provides advice as to how GNG can be met. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 12 February 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 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halesowen Chronicle[edit]

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

No sign of significant coverage. The best source I can turn up is this blog (?), which describes it as "a weekly freesheet tabloid newspaper delivered to households in the town of Halesowen in the south-eastern corner of the Metropolitan Borough of Dudley in the West Midlands," which does not inspire confidence regarding notability. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to lack WP:SIGCOV or any other secondary coverage (besides the one dubious source the nominator dug up, which I also found while searching) than evinces notability for inclusion. MaterialsPsych (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this in a 1991 business directory:
HALESOWEN CHRONICLE (Free) Est: 1986 Thurs Local news, sport and features, TV guide, letters, women's page, motoring, holidays, etc. Head Office: 51–53 Queen St, Wolverhampton, West Midlands WV1 3BU. Tel: 0902 313131
I suspect that most of that is untrue, over 30 years later. Certainly the Australian WWW site, whose content is full of lorem ipsum and just screams unreliable source, supports none of the rest of the article at hand about a differently named subject. The non-directory content is unverifiable and Wikipedia is not a business directory. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A long dead newspaper that was little known when it was alive. Athel cb (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass the threshold per other users' WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom, also no significant coverage. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:33, 13 February 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 11:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atari 2600 prototype games[edit]

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

what is a prototype game? i don't know. the article certainly doesn't explain it. the list is wholly original research. ltb d l (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. ltb d l (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears "prototype" refers to unreleased, making this a valid navigational list. (i.e. as a "Short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" in WP:CSC) It could explain the context better, but AfD is not cleanup. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see how this could be a "short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" when this article has no sources of its own, and two-thirds of the game titles listed are either redlinks or non-links. Admittedly, there are some game titles here which link to articles that say that the game was developed for the Atari 2600 but not released, but those represent a minority of the games listed. I would need to see much better sourcing before I could support keeping this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While there's generally a precedent that cancelled video game lists are acceptable when properly sourced 1) this one is 100% unsourced 2) it can be very difficult to find sourcing on cancelled games from this long ago, and 3) I'm not even 100% that's what this article is even documenting, as there's no prose or sources to provide any context. So in this situation, I'd probably lean towards a WP:TNT delete, or sending to the draftspace, as it's not ready to be published (or even understood) as is. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revising my stance to Draftify. And I know it's often asked "who is ever going to work on this draft?", and I can say that it could be me eventually. I've been working on rewriting and cleaning up cancelled video game lists for the last couple years, and could eventually work my way to this one. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As stated above, the list is a valid one with a clear category and not inherently without merit. But it's just unverifiable based on the lack of sourcing, the ambiguous scope, and non-notability of the items themselves. Put it this way - if it were being merged to a general list of Atari 2600 games, the immediate question would be "How do you know these are eligible?" There's nothing to go off of at present. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft. Has potential to be something but currently is nothing and needs serious attention before it can become anything of worth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - A list regarding unrelease Atari 2600 has potential indeed. Yes, looking for the respective sources for each entry will be a challenge given the platform's age nowdays but it's doable. Using AtariProtos as a good starting guide, it can become a very informative article. But for now, it's best recommended to make it a draft. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:34, 14 February 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) asilvering (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic Lateral[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted for failing WP:LASTING. In general, we only make football articles for plays that will be remembered for a long time, such as Miracle at the New Meadowlands. While a successful lateral for a game winning touchdown would be notable (Miracle in Miami), a failed lateral is likely not notable. While the game did have minor playoff implications (Dolphins clinched the postseason over the Patriots), it had very little lasting effect. I could only find one source describing the event following the immediate aftermath. Since the bar for a football article seems to be very high, this is likely unsuitable for an article and is better contained in 2022 Las Vegas Raiders season and 2022 New England Patriots season. 12.74.238.84 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Processing AfD for IP per request. SkyWarrior 15:30, 28 January 2024

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning redirect to the 2022 New England Patriots season (as the play impacted them more) rather than a weak keep though there has been some coverage about the play in 2023. [19][20] Alvaldi (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you have to look at why the failed lateral was so notable. It wasn't just any failed lateral, but an absurd, ill-advised play committed by what had recently been one of the most successful teams in league history. This inevitably resulted in extensive coverage in the immediate aftermath. Multiple sources dubbed it one of the "dumbest" or "worst plays in NFL history", comparing it to other "bloopers" such as the Butt Fumble and Colts Catastrophe. I also added a couple more sources that cited this play in 2023 well after the play's aftermath, including one covering the ending of the 2023 ReliaQuest Bowl and comparing it to this play. Hopefully that helps address nom's concern. WuTang94 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there was plenty of coverage of the play (separate from game summaries) at the time and it continued to get coverage in 2023. As WuTang94 explained, it was not just a simple failed play but a substantial blooper. Perhaps in time memory of the play will fade and it will not be mentioned again, in which case there may be a case at the time that this did not have as lasting an impact as some of us think it does. But for now I am not seeing a valid deletion rationale.Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond coverage in late 2022 and early 2023, there is no talk about this play. I don't think it's had sustained coverage... We could mention it briefly in articles about that season for each team Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This play did receive enough coverage as a standalone event that an article on Wikipedia still seems suitable. The play received both standalone coverage and dominant coverage in relation to the game in both sports journalism (e.g: Fox Sports, Sports Illustrated, ESPN) and the sports section of national newspapers (e.g: AP, USA Today, who ranked it alongside other infamous plays with Wikipedia pages, LA Times). The event even received late 2023 coverage courtesy of the Las Vegas Review Journal and Sports Illustrated, highlighting the event as an example of the Patriots' downfall that season and beyond. This play also had an impact beyond the day itself, as the likelihood (per FiveThirtyEight) of the Patriots making it to the offseason fell to below 20% compared to being above 50% prior to the game. As what WuTang94 commented above, the play itself was a major fluke from a team that was once dominant in the league, and it's a play that has received the cycle of coverage WP:LASTING requires: Coverage of the event, its immediate aftermath, and discussion long afterward, in a variety of topic-driven and national sources. MooseMike (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep. Multiple writers have regarded the play as one of the worst in NFL history (with some people comparing the play to the infamous Butt Fumble), and had the Patriots won this game, they would have made the playoffs instead of Miami. Even though much of the coverage of the play occurred in the immediate aftermath of the game, it was still talked about well after it occurred. For example, in the 2023 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, Virginia's ill-advised turnover elicited comparison's to Jakobi Meyers' lateral. This is not to mention that the play signaled a symbolic end to the Patriots as we knew them, as they have been downright dreadful since that game. 2600:100E:A020:B376:CCB6:A836:9818:691A (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Patriots weren’t good since Brady left. 2020 was a worse year for them then 2022. And yes while they would’ve made the playoffs over Miami, the end result is likely the same: playoff loss to Buffalo. Saying this play made the Patriots bad is false, especially when they won Week 17 vs Miami and also had a close loss against Cincinatti, one of the best teams in football that year. You cannot compare a basketball play to a football play seriously. Maybe it has some lasting coverage but not enough for a standalone article.--2603:3003:4802:5F00:D059:EC1D:21C9:6D9E (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors in support of deleting or redirecting the page argued that there was not WP:LASTING significance of this play, or alternatively that while there was some nominally continued coverage, such coverage ended in early 2023. And while there is plenty of coverage from March 2023 on the aftermath of this play and how it affected Meyers, in addition to the uncontested swarm of coverage this got at the time it occurred in December 2022, it isn't true that early 2023 was the end of this event's significant coverage. Even in Autumn 2023, I was able to find multiple examples of WP:CONTINUED significant coverage of this event.
As for WP:LASTING, I think the notability here comes from WP:EVENTCRIT#3 (not WP:EVENTCRIT#1 which involves lasting effects), where we're asked to consider a much broader analysis. And that we've got WP:INDEPTH coverage that has WP:CONTINUED well after the event itself from diverse reliable sources makes me lean towards keeping this here. I do think that there is some enduring notability of this play, as such, and I lean towards keeping this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:23, 19 February 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 14:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunas Bangsa School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The school existed, but the school didn't pass any notability requirement per WP:NORG. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources cited, fails WP:GNG as there is nothing on the page that distinguishes notability on why it would have its own page. Noorullah (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: School article of unclear notability, lacking independent refs, and a search turned up no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just existence is not enough. Lorstaking (talk) 13:16, 15 February 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!} 07:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hurley[edit]

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

lugnuts stub. cited only to a database. fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Canada. ltb d l (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it is enough, but there is coverage of her outside of game summaries at least in the Hamilton Spectator and Montreal Star. Rlendog (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly brief mentions in various period sport reports [21]. I can't see keeping this, lack of extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:40, 19 February 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 14:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Fasana[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No WP:SIGCOV. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I couldn't find any verified information on when John Fasana was born. Also, John Fasana's website is just a Chinese web page saying that the site was created successfully. Busition (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username (talk) 13:19, 12 February 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 14:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas F. Tessitor[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable offices. No sources found to indicate notability. Tagged for notability since 2017. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High School Heroes[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NBOOK. I began by searching for reviews on Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly (to no avail). I did a Google search and couldn't find any reliable sources. Looking at the Amazon product page didn't help find potential reviews; to the contrary, the book only has 18 reviews on Amazon (and no listed reviews from reliable sources). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Arnold, Dale (2010-10-10). "High School Heroes by James Mascia". Baltimore Science Fiction Society. Archived from the original on 2024-02-12. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  This is not a reliable review. The page notes: "The following book review is a personal opinion expressed by an individual holding a membership in the Baltimore Science Fiction Society. BSFS is not responsible for the contents, opinions or accuracy of this or any other review on the site. If you have an alternate review of this work BSFS is interested in posting your opinion. Contact dale at bsfs dot org for further details about how you can join BSFS and post reviews."
  If it were not for this lack of editorial oversight, this could have been a reliable review.
  The review notes: "This novel passes the fun test. It is a well crafted entertaining multilayered story with a few interesting plot twists. The story is internally consistent with the created universe. I recommend this book to young adults, and young spirits in somewhat older bodies, as an enjoyable read. Given this first novel, I have great hope for the future work of the author."
2. Poynor, Sara (2010-09-29). "Westlake teacher tells tale of high school heroes. Mascia unveils first in a series of fantasy fiction". Maryland Independent. Archived from the original on 2013-12-21. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  This is a good source that discusses the book in detail. The article notes: "What starts out as a typical story set in a high school, filled with stereotypical jocks and cheerleaders, nerds and band geeks, transforms into a heroic tale in "High School Heroes" by Westlake High School English teacher James Mascia. ... The idea for the book originated after someone at a convention pointed out that there are a lot of comics relating to superheroes but not really any prose fiction, Mascia said. It started as a series of four or five short stories that were published in A Thousand Faces, a quarterly magazine of superhuman fiction, and evolved into a novel."
3. "Everyday situations inspire author of far-out fiction". Maryland Independent. 2011-10-14. Archived from the original on 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  This source provides a sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "James Mascia of Waldorf has published “High School Heroes” in 2010 and “Camp Hero” in 2011. He described his books as “young adult fantasy/superhero.” ... Mascia recently emailed responses to questions from the Independent."
With one unreliable source, one reliable source, one passing mention, there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow High School Heroes to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No book reviews found in my search. The three given above are as described. Should be deleted for not meeting BOOK notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing usable on newspapers.com or ProQuest, fails WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:47, 12 February 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. ✗plicit 05:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajitha Raja[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable politician who fails to satisfy any criterion from WP:NPOL TheWikiholic (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student politics is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, and I still struggle to understand why Indian editors are so uniquely more prone than anybody else to thinking it would be — but the article cites absolutely nothing like the volume, depth or range of media coverage about her that it would take to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD closed as keep, and various sources identified in that discussion have not been added to the article. My search before reviewing the previous AfD had similar results, e.g.

D Raja's daughter to contest elections for DUSU president (PTI/Hindustan Times, 1 Sept 2010) - some biographical/educational background, some interview
For Aparajitha,lineage alone won't seal victory (The Indian Express, 2 September 2010) - based on an interview, with some context
Aparajitha Raja is in the eye of a 'patriotic' storm (Business Standard, 27 Feb 2016) - some interview, with context
Insider-Out (The New Indian Express, 13 Mar 2016) - "Well-known Bengali writer Mandakranta Sen has written a poem, I Am Aparajitha, dedicated to her."
JNUSU polls: Women candidates fielded by all parties for president's post this year (India Today, 31 Aug 2017) "...creating a buzz among all candidates is Rajya Sabha member and Communist Party of India leader D Raja's daughter Aparajitha Raja, who tore into JNU administration in her nomination speech on the campus..." with additional reporting on her platform
JNU sedition case: Court to consider chargesheet against Kanhaiya, others on January 19 (The Indian Express, 15 Jan 2019) - she is briefly mentioned with context and quoted
JNU Sedition Row Serves Right-Wing Govt’s Agenda: Aparajitha Raja - (The Quint, 19 Jan 2019) - an interview with some introductory context

Beccaynr (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has several in-depth pieces almost entirely about her by major news outlets, alongside some smaller but still substantive coverage for her runs for student union presidencies. The reason Indian editors think that student politicians are notable is because student politics in India are vastly more important than in the rest of the world and several of our major universities are better-known for their politics than actual research. AryKun (talk) 09:48, 6 February 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) 04:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion, NPOL provides inclusionary criteria to accord presumed notability, it cannot be a basis for exclusion. Those advocating delete provide no analysis of the sources from the last discussion, nor address the result at the last AfD, which was a fairly clear consensus for keep. Notability is not temporary. There is more than adequate sourcing to satisfy the GNG/BIO. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree to AryKun's comments -- Tinu Cherian - 13:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOL is irrelevant here, the claim for notability is per WP: BASIC. The sourcing demonstrates significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as shown also in the last AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Lowes[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor holding an unnotable position in a relatively small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three hits in Gnews in Spanish-language media [22], but mostly just name drops. I can't find extensive coverage of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the vast majority of secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. There are two LA Times articles [23] [24] that mention her, but both 'in a local politician does x' way and I'd say they were WP:ROTM. Shaws username (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Clark (politician)[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable positions in a small city. While the subject does have some media coverage, I don't believe that any of it meets WP:SIGCOV, therefore failing WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- I found this [25] and [26]Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Shaws username said, those two sources are not independent of the subject and therefore do not contribute towards notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing remotely notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, all the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. The two links above are both from bodies that she was a member of and not secondary sources. Shaws username (talk) 13:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL and not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 14 February 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. Closing this on the basis of WP:CSK #3 - a call for deletion with no other explanation or a call for splitting cannot be considered an "accurate deletion rationale", especially given the SIGCOV reliable sourcing shown to exist. Discussion on splitting can continue at the article's talk page. Regards, (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily and Andrey Shchelkalov[edit]

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

The page contains the biography of two brothers. The page should be split or deleted. Changeworld1984 (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're saying that it should be deleted or split solely because it is a biography of two brothers, then that is not a valid reason for deletion. It is perfectly acceptable to have a biography on two closely connected people in the same article. I will note, however, that it is an unsourced biography. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Per WP:SK3. Nomination is flawed in innumerous ways. No WP:BEFORE search was conducted; if even a perfunctory one was, the nominator would have found the corresponding articles in ru.wp (ru:Щелкалов, Андрей Яковлевич and ru:Щелкалов, Василий Яковлевич), which list a number of sources providing WP:SIGCOV, including entries in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary ([27]) and the Russian Biographical Dictionary ([28] and [29]), among many others. Additionally, split proposals occur at the article's talk page, not at AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 07:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, a biographical article can have multiple subjects if they are strongly interlinked; examples include Sacco and Vanzetti and Mildred and Richard Loving. Curbon7 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bilateral relations. Curbon7 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Curbon7. No objection to splitting as there is clearly enough material to make this possible. Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a quick search returns a few sources that bundle the brothers together. On the other hand, the French and Russian Wikipedia currently have separate articles for each of them, so there may be some good reason for that as well. But more importantly, as pointed out by others, this is not a matter of deletion. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 12 February 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 Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy#Publications. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Journal of Public Affairs[edit]

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

It covers notable topics, but I couldn't establish that it is notable itself. Boleyn (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
limited merge looks to be published by a single school. I can find nothing that counts toward WP:GNG. That said it looks like a reasonable journal. I think a line at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy#Publications would work nicely unless that would somehow be UNDUE as long as we can verify this journal really is associated with the school. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 8 February 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) 04:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merge as stated above. Fails GNG and NJOURNALS. Also, some the the articles carried by this journal are cited according to Google Scholar. The journal itself is doing good work in its field. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:31, 15 February 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. Star Mississippi 22:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom in Tibet controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a fairly unusual XfD but I submit that this article is based in large part on original research, despite citing a decent number of sources. The entire article plays out as a tit-for-tat "China says this" vs "Tibet exile/apologist says that" and there isn't really an attempt to actually frame anything within the context of "what actually happened".

It's understandable to say "the issue is contentious" but when the entire article becomes a matter of paraphrasing different POVs, there's very little that a reader can actually take out of the article. The only "real" encyclopedic piece of work I can see is "Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover", which itself does not seem particularly germane to the question of whether serfdom existed in Tibet prior to 1951, other than, perhaps, insinuating that the Chinese government does not care about Tibet or rather that the Tibetan social structure is so rigid that reforms have only been partially successful. Regardless, it does not feel as if this segment is appropriate for inclusion as a matter of historicity.

The same topic is covered to some length in the article Social class in Tibet, which approaches a similar topic from a perspective much more aligned with the standards on Wikipedia. I understand that approaching an article entitled "Controversy" is understandably difficult, but articles like Investiture Controversy and Controversy in Russia regarding the legitimacy of eastward NATO expansion handle their respective topics with substantially more grace and include the proper historical context instead of devolving eventually to namedropping entities and/or historians and assigning respective quotations without any contextualization as to what they mean. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, History, Buddhism, Geography, Social science, Asia, and Central Asia. Augend (drop a line) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep & rewrite. Regardless of whether serfdom has or has not existed in Tibet, the topic has gained enough traction and is notable. A quick search of "serfdom in Tibet" on Google Scholar brings up loads of articles: [30]. Social class in Tibet is a suitable article, but I think this topic deserves its own page.

That being said, if this article survives AfD, it will need to be significantly rewritten. Definitely don't make WP:POV forks out of it, but then I agree that there must be significant effort to compare POVs into a coherent article. We can also jettison the "Human rights in Tibet" section. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rewrite. I'd mostly agree with The Lonely Panther's position here, that the debate itself deserves its own article, mostly even just to keep track of all the perspectives on the issues. The 'serfdom controversy' is significant enough on its own, as seen by the size of the literature, to deserve a separate article from Chinese administration in Tibet and the controversy over that.

Potential rewrite could for sure use a lot more definitions and information on the structure, prevalence, and development of class structures throughout Tibetan history. Additionally more detail on exactly which historical events contain 'competing versions of Tibetan History', such as the disagreements over the nature of the 1959 Tibetan Uprising, is vital. Literal sun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 9 February 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) 04:10, 12 February 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. As a regular closer, sometimes discussions have to run for two or three weeks before consensus becomes clear. It is very hard to recreate an article that has been deleted through an AFD so it's important that a closer sees a consensus that goes beyond the nominator's statement before deciding to delete a main space article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Pouyat[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Coverage is self-generated profiles and passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Finance, and France. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [[31]], [[32]] and [[33]] are enough to establish notability. Been as a senator at European Union is also key tool to establish notability. 102.91.54.72 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all passing mentions, not significant coverage. As for him being a senator (I don't think the EU has a senate), I found this, where he's described as the Senator for EU of a business group. Squeakachu (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The EU has Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), quite a lot of them, actually. There are no senators that I know of. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, that are all passing mentions which makes them "Not independent" and not reliable sources. scope_creep^Talk 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was planning to go through the first block of reference but it is so chronically bad, I'm not going to bother. If anybody has any references, per the best-practice WP:THREE, post at least three WP:SECONDARY references on the subject. scope_creep^Talk 16:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: However the subject seems notable, only needs few more independent resources. LKBT (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA who has no concept of Wikipedia notabilty policies. scope_creep^Talk 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LKBT: Do you have any sources per WP:THREE to show he is notable? scope_creep^Talk 13:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes GNG DXdy FX (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 23:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anybody have WP:THREE WP:SECONDARY references that prove the subject is notable? I've not seen any evidence that he is notable. They are WP:SPA coming and nothing being offered. scope_creep^Talk 23:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[34], [35] & [36] per above IP is enough to establish notability. I think you don’t need to stress it. DXdy FX (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 above is an event listing and is non-rs.

Ref 5 "Stephan Pouyat, global head of capital markets and fund services at Euroclear, said the deal would help Egypt achieve its goal of reaching a wider" is a passing mention and is WP:PRIMARY and is not in-depth.

Ref 6 "However, Stephan Pouyat, Euroclear's head of product management global reach, says the bank.." This is another passing mention, is no indepth and WP:PRIMARY. Not a single one of these are valid so far. scope_creep^Talk 08:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the references advanced by the keep !voters are even close to WP:GNG-qualifying coverage. If that's the best we have, he's not notable. -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus for keep or delete. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: EN coverage is all PR items. A French search turns up not much else, most are mentions of the Euroclear company/business, could perhaps redirect there. I don't see extensive (or much of any kind) of coverage for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It pass notability of a living person because he/she has been featured in Reuter, and Instutional of Investors 102.91.52.156 (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with possible redirect to Euroclear). Refs fail WP:SIGCOV. Subject is obviously successful in his field, but not yet WP:N.-- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way a person will fail GNG and become successful. It should either be successful and pass GNG or unsuccessful and fail GNG Your vote seems to be controversial 102.91.46.92 (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nonsense. A person's level of success is not tied to whether or not they can pass WP:GNG, or vice-versa. -- asilvering (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a truly stupid argument from another WP:SPA, just arrived this second. By that definition, the whole world would be on here. So far in the three weeks this Afd has been open, not a single piece of evidence has been presented that shows the individual is notable. Not one valid WP:SECONDARY reference that satisfies WP:BIO. . I also don't understand why this is still open, despite the complete lack evidence of notability. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate anything more than PR. The person being a CEO is not enough, he is far away from the notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 09:54, 18 February 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 Bombo Radyo Philippines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYRX[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It could be redirected to Bombo Radyo Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Should be redirected to Bombo Radyo Philippines as there's not significant sources.Benicaverra (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, I'm open to having the article draftified instead. Israel's Son 16:53, 11 February 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) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bombo Radyo Philippines per Benicaverra (talk · contribs) - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 15:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMA Negeri 5 Bandung[edit]

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

The school existed, but I didn't think it satisfied the WP:NORG requirement for inclusion to Wikipedia. The articles on id-wiki is unsourced as well. The article in id-wiki showed notable people that are alumni of this school, but such things didn't show notability to the school. There are some passing mentions of the school - such as the school having events but it didn't show notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:02, 12 February 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. There are some complicated, involved proposals mentioned here that can be followed-up by editors interested in this article. The general consensus is to Keep this article and what can happen next with the content is up to you now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasra Ali Abukar[edit]

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

Ali Abukar was in the news for a poor performance at the Summer World University Games and related allegations of nepotism. Per WP:BLP1E, I don't think we can justify an article for her as she is only known for this one race and is otherwise a low-profile individual. The incident was widely reported in early August 2023, but none of the coverage was sustained. She doesn't seem to be known for anything else. A PROD was declined. Suggest redirecting to 2021 Summer World University Games where there is a section dedicated to the controversy. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is notability, but about the controversy itself, not about the runner. I'd perhaps write a new article about the controversy, or merge a small portion of it into a subsection in the event's article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second this. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think about simply re-naming this article? The information is already there. Joyous! Noise! 01:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Ali Abukar gained attention through a hotline from August 2023 to September. Her involvement in corruption incidents led to turmoil within the Somali government, ultimately prompting the Somali Parliament to summon the Sports Minister to appear before the House of Representatives.

QalasQalas (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eventify. I agree with Oaktree b and the succeeding commenters. Keep it but as an event instead of a biography. Geschichte (talk) 08:59, 5 February 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) 04:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep but rename" is my !vote, if that helps. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but as event. Orientls (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, article has been expanded and cited since. (Thanks, Isaidnoway) (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piranha Brothers[edit]

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

Uncited for 15 years. While sources confirm this sketch exists, I can't find anything showing this specific sketch, out of tons and tons in Monty Python's prolific career, has individual notability. Possibly redirect to the list of episodes? Not sure, though, since it's a sketch not an episode.

Previously survived an AfD, but this was was a mass AfD of many sketches, several of which were notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can find a number of sources specifically discussing this sketch. It's discussed in this book on Monty Python in great detail, talking about how the sketch was based on the gangsters known as the Kray twins. Death of a Pirate and Bloody London: Shocking Tales from London's Gruesome Past also discuss the sketch as commentary on the Kray twins' career. It's also used in Juvenal and the Satiric Emotions as an example of satiric rhetoric. There are a lot more of these if you look on Google Books. Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's a lot of short mentions, but I don't think any of the examples you gave constitute significant coverage, except the first one which seems to be fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a notable sketch as evidenced by the amount of sources that reference it. I'm still working on the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Undergoing expansion. Need more consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - expansion completed and article is now sourced. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah my concerns are addressed. Seems fine to keep now. Withdraw. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FMUATW[edit]

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

Can't find multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial mentions of this song to demonstrate this song meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The only source I can find that isn't a trivial mention of the song is this article which is less than 1000 characters long. Would recommend a redirect to Brooke Candy discography. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 11:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 11:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not delete it! There will be more articles coming out very soon since her album is getting released this year and she usually does interviews and track-by-track breakdowns of each song leading up to the release date. If sources are the problem, I will update it as more come out! BiggestBidder (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't help with establishing notability as they are not independent of the artist, and as the song has already been released as a single, I am unsure as to whether there will be any more sources about the song itself when the album is released. Notability is based on current sources and attention, not ones that may or may not exist in the future. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The song was released 6months ago; I'm not sure what else can be added. If it hasn't been covered since before the launch, I don't expect to find much at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable song, does not appear to have charted and little to no critical coverage in RS. Not much of anything found for coverage in my search. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: The most-cited source in the article is the non-trivial one mentioned above, which the article makes good usage of, even while the article is short. BiggestBidder (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per others. There is no in-depth coverage by secondary independent RS about the song. S0091 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 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!} 03:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diakonia Catholic School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The school existed, but the school didn't pass WP:NORG. The school didn't have any notability for inclusion to Wikipedia. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect Not finding anything either. Would suggest a redirection to List of schools in Indonesia. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is unreferenced and clearly fails to meet WP:NORG 1keyhole (talk) 16:46, 13 February 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!} 03:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Global Indo-Asia[edit]

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

The school existed, but it didn't satisfy WP:NORG. The school have some passing coverage based on a WP:BEFORE search such as celebrations of 25th birthday, but none of the sources showed the notability of the school. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 03:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. Firstly, deletion discussions for redirects would properly be done at WP:RFD, so this is the wrong venue. Secondly and more importantly, such a discussion is unnecessary, because if the draft were to be accepted, an admin would presumably delete the redirect in order to move the article to mainspace as a matter of course. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 02:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Tate[edit]

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

Would like to delete this redirect page in order to move Draft:Tristan Tate into article mainspace.

I am an uninvolved editor. A simple google search for "Who is tristan tate" returns significant, notable and reliable coverage of the individual. He is a two-time european kickboxing champion, was part of a TV show and involved in a very high profile criminal case. Mr Vili talk 01:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to move as per my reasoning Mr Vili talk 01:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 12 February 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 00:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Ear albums discography[edit]

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

If the label itself isn't notable, I doubt this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Norway. Let'srun (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of relevance in seeing these items grouped together. This is a job for other, all-encompassing music websites to list. Geschichte (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't see the notability per GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:28, 13 February 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 00:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritu Nanda[edit]

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

non-notable, "top" insurance agent, insignificant coverage from family lineage. User4edits (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and Maharashtra. User4edits (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article Ritu Nanda does seem to have enough coverage in the press and does have a few newsworthy articles. I think she passes basic WP:GNG. WeAreAllHere _talk 07:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She owns an insurance agency, not a large national or international insurance company. A small business owner is rarely notable. Sourcing is largely obituaries, nothing before that. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sources are an interview, a press release, a brief mention and a brief notice about her death. Several of her family members are notable but notability is not inherited. S0091 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 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 10:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICS 219[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. No obvious good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if this is enough to establish notability (I don't think it is personally) but I found a few sources for this a training manual, an aid plan. There are other various official government documents but again this does not mean it is notable on the basis I have not yet found significant secondary coverage. EvilxFish (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A form can be notable, but it doesn't look like this one is. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of any significance or notability for a stand alone article. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:30, 13 February 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.