Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Mehmood Mughal[edit]

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

Non-notable advocate. Lacks significant coverage to meet WP:GNG criteria. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 25 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! 23:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Raza Pasha[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer, fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 25 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! 23:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masood Chishti[edit]

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

Limited press release-style coverage about him: [1], [2], [3]. I don't think it is not enough to pass WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 25 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! 22:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asrar-ul-Haq Mian[edit]

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

There is no obituary about him in Pakistani media and the existing coverage is mentions-based. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Correct title is Mian Israr-ul-Haq. Geo TV [4] and The Express Tribune [5] covered his election. 103.65.140.93 (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy City station[edit]

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

This is a clear case of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is one possible station on one of several options for a possible future subway line - there's literally nothing except a single dot on a single map, and nothing resembling significant coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's a WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NTRAINSTATION. Shaws username . talk . 00:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see drafts were made for some others as well. These are purely hypothetical and there is no need for these separate pages whatsoever; the main line articles can mention potential planning. Reywas92Talk 00:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It is a proposed station. Proposed station are unlikely to have articles if (1) They are not subject to widespread coverage in separate news articles. There is no dedicated article for the station alone. (2) It is up to the agency to cancel the station proposal. With no GNG passable sources, if the proposal would be cancelled/rejected, then this article will simply be useless. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:21, 26 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. (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tibai family[edit]

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

nothing but family tree, violation of WP:NOTGENEALOGY microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 23:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC) withdrawn microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 20:45, 27 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! 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Na iTalai FM[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Not notable, no reliable sources covering it were found. – Hilst [talk] 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Fiji. – Hilst [talk] 22:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. I also could not find any reliable sources with any mention of the topic, and the two references linked on the page are a permanent deadlink and a facebook post.— Moriwen (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Clearly fails notability guidelines. Zero hits on Gnews or Gbooks, and main results shows several Facebook post, an X profile, a (possible) primary unreliable source, a list of radio stations in Suva, and this. No GNG passable found. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: current sourcing is far from guidelines. various social media profiles online that don't establish notability, there is a profile but it is WP:PRIMARY. She was afairy 00:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This station, Radio Light and Radio Naya Jiwan are all operated by Evangelical Bible Mission Trust Board. Found this article from reachbeyond.org. IgelRM (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this early as we inch into SNOW territory. I think it's important to AGF of AFD nominators unless one sees a TREND of an editor focusing in on nominating articles from particular geographic regions unless they are guided by investigating a specific article creator's output. That said, this AFD does suffer from a problem that I see a lot in AFDLand which is a brief and weak nomination statement. Nominators should present an argument for deletion, not just policy page abbreviations. But, like I said, I see this too frequently in AFDs from veteran and new editors alike. it's important to demonstrate that a valid BEFORE has been done. It might have been done in this case but it's impossible to tell by this nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Aluyor[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. UtherSRG (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. UtherSRG: Would you like to explain in more detail your argument for why you think he fails NPROF, given that our article lists him as vice chancellor for a university in Nigeria, where vice chancellor is the title used for heads of universities (WP:NPROF#C6)? (As in the UK and elsewhere, the chancellor is a ceremonial title; the vice chancellor is the real head.) While I'm asking, can you also explain why you think his citation record [6] with multiple triple-digit citation counts is not good enough for #C1? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JoelleJay said it well: Is this really a major university? If not, that strikes out C6. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the top public university in Nigeria and third overall. Central and Adams (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Top in the country doesn't equate to major. It can mean there isn't any major university in the country. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No major universities in Nigeria, the sixth most populous nation in the world? Good luck with that argument. The top university in Nigeria is not like the top university in Monaco -- its top university is major purely by virtue of being top in Nigeria. Your argument begins to sound like WP:BIAS. Central and Adams (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the rigorous definition of "major university"? Does EDSU meet that definition? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a fallacy to assume that a "rigorous definition" is required for notability or even possible in any context. Why do you think we need such a thing or that such a thing can even exist? There's no sensible way to understand the phrase "major university" that doesn't include "top university in Nigeria." Central and Adams (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no fallacy. "Major" has a meaning. If you include "top university in any country" then that could water down that definition. How does EDSU compare to any other university that would generally be considered "major"? Does it have the same standards of accreditation? The same level of research output? top public university in Nigeria and third overall can mean very little if there are only four universities in Nigeria. (There aren't, but I'm showing how your logic is weak.) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Equating "has a meaning" with "has a rigorous definition" is equivocation, another fallacy. This has been known since Wittgenstein's work on language games. But this conversation is getting too tangential for me and I'm content to let the closer decide at this point. Central and Adams (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not the "top university in Nigeria", it was the "best state university in open educational resources" in 2018. JoelleJay (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- as the head of a major university satisfies WP:NPROF#C6, as noted by my colleague David Eppstein. Central and Adams (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is in the highest seat of a major university, although not meeting GNG passes NPROF. Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 08:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would also like to know the reason behind UtherSRG's decision to bring this topic to AFD again after I informed them here that it met the WP:NPROF#C6 when they moved it to the draft phase initially. Despite my explanation, they still insisted on bringing it to AFD again. Is there any other criteria that UtherSRG is using to make this decision?Kaizenify (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer the community to weigh in when there is a question of notability. Too often I've seen articles accepted from draft that are in the questionable range. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a good-faith reason why your nomination statement did not mention that you had already been made aware of this, and did not elaborate on why you thought this criterion did not apply? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the conversation above. There's enough room for debate on whether NPROF#C6 applies. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are avoiding the question. Your nomination statement did not say that this was a possible issue, that you already knew about, on which there might be room for debate. It just stated flatly that he failed WP:PROF, potentially misleading other contributors into the false belief that you had searched for ways in which he might pass WP:PROF and found none that were even worthy of mention and debate. I have to assume per WP:AGF that it was not your intent to mislead contributors, so perhaps this should be a warning to be more careful in formulating future deletion nomination statements. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Clearly pass WP:NPROF Kaizenify (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets academic notability guidelines. Note I have linked to the wikidata record and added the link to his SCOPUS record which shows healthy citations too: [7]. ResonantDistortion 19:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is EDSU actually a major, significant university in the sense expected by C6? It was only established in 2016, we don't have much to go on regarding the quality of its research output, and its establishment was controversial.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is not vice chancellor anymore, or better, he is holding on to his post after his term was finished, see this January 2024 news. If the article is kept, this information should be added. Broc (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NTEMP. Central and Adams (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I had wondered the prompt for the AFD since the subject clearly passed WP: GNG and WP: PROF. Since the nominators main purpose is because they believe the chancellor is no more the vice chancellor. But the article and sources states he is still the VC. Besides, Notability cannot be permanent . There are also verified sources for his academic achievement for WP: NRV. EDSU basically is a major university so far it merited an enwiki article. Otuọcha (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am convinced by Central & Adams' assertion that the university he heads or headed is the top public university in its (large) nation. If there is controversy over whether he still heads it, that cannot decrease his notability. Additionally he has a (weaker but still present) case for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein, the article's claim of being a "top university" is rather misleading; the university ranked as the best state university in open educational resources, which is a metric related to availability of openly licensed and freely distributed course materials, not the quality of education or research output. I too was going to !vote speedy keep per C6 until I noticed the young age of the university, which seemed incongruent with a high overall ranking. It looks like EDSU is tied (with several other universities) for last place among Nigerian universities. JoelleJay (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I totally understand UtherSRG's confusion here, Edo State of Nigeria is underrepresented here on Wikipedia (Nigeria generally is). Anyway, this subject easily passes C1 and C6 of WP:NPROF. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Africa is still suffering from systematic bais, so this nominations and others i have seen since i came back is of no surprise to me. UthrrSRG nominated this article because he thought that Edo State University was not good enough like western universities ["Global Perspectives"]). All the best, Reading Beans 06:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Merchant[edit]

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

Notability in question. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As Mr. Merchant is a published author and a columnist with a regular byline, I find him notable. I think the article, presently a stub, is lacking in content, but that is no reason to delete it. Far better to add useful comment to the brief history and his growing corpus of work. Jax MN (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NAUTHOR by a mile. The One Device was reviewed by Financial Times, New York Times, and The Guardian, among others. Blood in the Machine was reviewed by Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and New Scientist. Jfire (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Needs a rewrite, but the book reviews posted in a comment above mine are good for passing AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs work, but AfD is not for quick fixes. Jfire identified many potential sources. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jfire makes a good case. The subject specific guideline for authors has been met. Dream Focus 06:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. (non-admin closure) v/r - Seawolf35 T--C 13:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kidprod[edit]

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

Not notable and fails WP:GNG. I can't find a single reliable source that mentions him. Also, article is written in a tone like an advertisement in some places, and simply not in an encyclopedic tone in others (like the "Early life") section. Also, author is kidprod themself. [8] ‍ Relativity 21:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I created the article and I agree with you. Maybe you could help improve the parts that you think aren't good. This is my first article, I don't have any experience. I genuinely could use your help. Kidprod (talk) 21:31, 25 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. Owen× ☎ 22:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kouichirou Itou[edit]

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

No indication of notability except for being arrested for sex offences, which is not in itself a criterion of notability per WP:BIO. ... discospinster talk 20:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is most certainly not the case; there is significant editorial bias with respect to this petition for deletion merely because Kouichirou Itou was accused of a nefarious crime; unconvicted. This article existed before this negative media came to light; which suggests there is truth value to my claim here.
    This individual is quite clearly notable. See this, and other data easily available at the internet (with a little effort).
    By deleting articles as a knee-jerk response to alleged criminal behavior; you debase the credibility of wikipedia itself as a reliable tool to procure reliable information.
    https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/aacta-org/Uploads/All-Winners-by-Category-7th-AACTA-Awards-Presented-by-Foxtel.pdf 45.45.17.170 (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly not the case. Just because someone is accused of a crime (mind you, he is not convicted) does not you can debase their credibility entirely. There are many articles describing the notability of this individual; but they're being ignored simply because he was accused of committing a crime. I see extreme editorial bias here. This article needs to stay. 146.229.255.21 (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You are free to add information to the article that speaks to his notability beyond being accused of a crime. That is in fact the point here: if there is nothing in the article except the fact that he's been arrested (not convicted), then the article should not stay due to violations of the biographies of living persons guidelines. If the article is deleted it can always be recreated in line with Wikipedia's policies. ... discospinster talk 20:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You would consider doing a better job as editor; you're clearly bias. This wasn't hard to dig up.
      https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/aacta-org/Uploads/All-Winners-by-Category-7th-AACTA-Awards-Presented-by-Foxtel.pdf
      7TH AACTA AWARDS PRESENTED BY FOXTEL All Winners – by Category
      YOUR NAME: Genki Kawamura, Katsuhiro Takei, KOUICHIROU ITOU, Yoshihiro Furusawa
      You are actively debasing wikipedia itself as a credible source of reliable information because you are trying to wipe notable people away from history because of an accusation; at someone who has not been convicted. Unfortunately, this is not hard to see. Tis the season for revisionist history? 45.45.17.170 (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then add it to the article rather than flooding this page with copy-pasted responses and insults against other editors. ... discospinster talk 15:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see coverage about him in Japanese news sources, or in anything really. I don't see notability at this time, not meeting notability for criminals (hasn't even been convicted yet). Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't see coverage about him in Japanese news sources"
    If you have the data (logs) at your search at Japanese media, please put it in. Even without your input; I will hereby succinctly prove his nobility using a single source.
    [9]https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/aacta-org/Uploads/All-Winners-by-Category-7th-AACTA-Awards-Presented-by-Foxtel.pdf
    7TH AACTA AWARDS PRESENTED BY FOXTEL All Winners – by Category
    YOUR NAME: Genki Kawamura, Katsuhiro Takei, KOUICHIROU ITOU, Yoshihiro Furusawa 45.45.17.170 (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've googled using source:.jp, in the news sections above, nothing comes up. From the source you've posted, we'll need a ton more sourcing than that. A name in a list alone doesn't make him notable, but it could indicate notability. Meaning if we have more, extensive sources, the article could potentially be kept. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think Itou might have enough notability to have his own article; however, the article itself does not prove notability as it stands, so it requires way more work done before I think it should be considered being added to mainspace. There are two sentences here and one of them is about his criminal arrest, so it's just not ready. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I think Itou might have enough notability to have his own article" -Sarcataclysmal
    Case in point. Kouichirou Itou is obviously notable. To ignore this fact would be to abstain from the use of all reason; undermining wikipedia itself as a reputable source of "facts". An accusation, sans a conviction is not grounds for challenging this individual of (obvious) notability. His works are certainly non-trivial. They're not hard to find. 45.45.17.170 (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Him having worked on various notable projects does not inherently make him notable. If someone had written an article on George Washington and included 3 lines of text, unless there was someone out there who saw this and began adding lines of citations and statements regarding his life and whatnot, then the article would by all means lack "notability" per the guidelines. You're arguing for a completely different thing than anyone else here is. If you're willing to sit here and argue with everyone, perhaps it would be wiser for you to verify Itou's notability yourself by adding content to the article. Sarcataclysmal (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a tantrum; I'm just acquainting fans of revisionist history; much like yourself about the actual facts. This article existed before bad PR related to Kouichirou Itou's alleged crimes which, again he has not yet been convicted for.
    BEST ASIAN FILM
    AACTA AWARD FOR BEST ASIAN FILM PRESENTED BY PR ASIA
     BIRDSHOT Pamela L. Reyes
     DANGAL Aamir Khan, Kiran Rao, Siddharth Roy Kapur
     I AM NOT MADAME BOVARY Wang Zhonglei, Zhou Maofei, Hu Xiaofeng
     KAASAV (TURTLE) Dr. Mohan Agashe, Sunil Sukthankar, Sumitra Bhave
     OUR TIME WILL COME Roger Lee, Stephen Lam, Ann Hui
     PINK Shoojit Sircar, Rashmi Sharma, Ronnie Lahiri, Sheel Kumar
     TRAIN TO BUSAN Lee Dong-ha
     WOLF WARRIOR 2 Zhang Miao, Guang Hailong
     YOUR NAME Genki Kawamura, Katsuhiro Takei, Kouichurou Itou, Yoshihiro Furusawa
    https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/aacta-org/Uploads/All-Winners-by-Category-7th-AACTA-Awards-Presented-by-Foxtel.pdf
    AACTA stands for Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts, a professional not-for-profit organisation of film and television practitioners in Australia. The organisation annually recognises and rewards achievement in Australian film and television with an awards ceremony. 45.45.17.170 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Securing a nomination for the AACTA Award for Best Asian Film, presented by PR Asia, is a significant achievement that goes beyond the immediate acknowledgment by the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts. This nomination serves as a powerful testament to the film's excellence and artistry, recognized by industry professionals and experts who play pivotal roles in shaping the trajectory of cinematic recognition.
    The AACTA Awards, as a distinguished institution within the film industry, carry a weight of authority and discernment. The fact that a film is nominated for this particular accolade indicates that it has been identified among the outstanding works in Asian cinema. This recognition extends beyond local or regional acclaim, projecting the film onto an international stage where its merit is acknowledged and celebrated.
    The nomination process itself reflects the stringent and high-quality standards associated with the AACTA Awards. Being nominated implies that the film has not only met but has surpassed expectations, standing out in a competitive landscape of cinematic creations. This distinction adds a layer of credibility to the film's craftsmanship and artistic vision.
    Beyond the film itself, a nomination for such a prestigious award has a ripple effect on the individuals involved in its creation – from filmmakers to actors and various contributors. It offers them more than just a certificate; it opens doors to increased visibility and enhanced opportunities within the global film industry. The acknowledgment by the AACTA Awards serves as a professional validation, paving the way for future projects and collaborations.
    In conclusion, a nomination for the AACTA Award for Best Asian Film presented by PR Asia is not merely an accolade; it is a recognition that reverberates through the broader cinematic landscape, positioning the film and its creators as notable contributors to the evolving tapestry of international cinema. 45.45.17.170 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, we don't actually take what events say about themselves as true. For example, you might say that your opinion is worth more than everyone else's, but that isn't actually true. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I just can't see how this person is notable. There is the story about the arrest but that isn't enough by itself and I'm not seeing anything else significant. Link20XX (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • BEST ASIAN FILM
    AACTA AWARD FOR BEST ASIAN FILM PRESENTED BY PR ASIA
     BIRDSHOT Pamela L. Reyes
     DANGAL Aamir Khan, Kiran Rao, Siddharth Roy Kapur
     I AM NOT MADAME BOVARY Wang Zhonglei, Zhou Maofei, Hu Xiaofeng
     KAASAV (TURTLE) Dr. Mohan Agashe, Sunil Sukthankar, Sumitra Bhave
     OUR TIME WILL COME Roger Lee, Stephen Lam, Ann Hui
     PINK Shoojit Sircar, Rashmi Sharma, Ronnie Lahiri, Sheel Kumar
     TRAIN TO BUSAN Lee Dong-ha
     WOLF WARRIOR 2 Zhang Miao, Guang Hailong
     YOUR NAME Genki Kawamura, Katsuhiro Takei, Kouichurou Itou, Yoshihiro Furusawa
    https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/aacta-org/Uploads/All-Winners-by-Category-7th-AACTA-Awards-Presented-by-Foxtel.pdf
    AACTA stands for Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts, a professional not-for-profit organisation of film and television practitioners in Australia. The organisation annually recognises and rewards achievement in Australian film and television with an awards ceremony. 45.45.17.170 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nomination for the AACTA Award for Best Asian Film presented by PR Asia holds significance as it serves as a recognition by the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts, an esteemed institution within the film industry. This nomination signifies that the film has been identified as one of the outstanding Asian films by industry professionals and experts.
    Being nominated for such an award suggests notability for several reasons. Firstly, it indicates a level of excellence in filmmaking that has captured the attention and appreciation of a respected academy. This recognition goes beyond local acclaim, reaching an international platform and contributing to the film's prestige.
    Secondly, the AACTA Awards are known for their discerning and high-quality standards, and being nominated attests to the film's ability to stand out in a competitive field. This acknowledgment can open doors for the filmmakers, actors, and other contributors, providing them with increased visibility and opportunities within the global film industry.
    In conclusion, a nomination for the AACTA Award for Best Asian Film presented by PR Asia not only acknowledges the film's exceptional qualities but also elevates its standing in the broader cinematic landscape, thus suggesting notability within the industry. 45.45.17.170 (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't WP:BLUDGEON the conversation, you don't need to reply to everyone's comment as we get your point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and possibly WP:SALT given the amount of attention here) per WP:BLP1E, the sources pushed above by the IP contains no indication of notability as per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP bludgeoning ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you also make the claim that night is day? Or perhaps that warm is hot?
    I'll gladly provide another source of notability. A sources used at Makoto Shinkai's page himself to illustrate notability; be the incompetent editors here themselves.
    "Producer Koichiro Ito has been working alongside director at Inc. for more than a decade. He's been there, deep inside the creative process, for each one of Shinkai's films since , beginning with in 2003."
    [10]https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2017-04-28/interview-comix-wave-koichiro-ito/.115324 24.37.247.250 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Producer Koichiro Ito has been working alongside director at Inc. for more than a decade. He's been there, deep inside the creative process, for each one of Shinkai's films since , beginning with in 2003.". He is quite clearly notable.
[11]https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2017-04-28/interview-comix-wave-koichiro-ito/.115324 24.37.247.250 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: current source about the arrest is the only one that is WP:INDY and WP:SIGCOV, but the reliability is iffy. there is some sourcing online but fails notability for criminals per Oaktree b, and even that sourcing from internet blogs is not really reliable. sourcing provided by the IP simply mentions the person in minor awards and other WP:PRIMARY documents. WP:SALT is applicable as well. She was afairy 00:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I don't know if this changes anything at all, but more news about Itou and been reported. Would this make the article more notable and worth keeping? ISD (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article deleted by its original creator, discussion was going this way anyway(non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 13:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arend and Anneesa Feenstra[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E of a couple who got a tiny blip of media attention in the past week for trivial reasons that would not pass the ten year test for enduring significance. Doing something dumb without thinking, and then giving one interview to a media outlet about it, is not in and of itself a reason to immortalize somebody forever in an encyclopedia just because they had a couple of news stories written about that in the first couple of days. Obviously, this can be recreated in the future if it actually turns out to have a significant long-term impact on the world (seems unlikely, though I won't say never -- I suppose they could theoretically launch a cult compound in Kamchatka and accidentally trigger World War III or something?), but as of right now this is essentially just a WP:NOTNEWS violation about low-profile private citizens who've done absolutely nothing of permanent significance. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 25 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 Scarabeefilms. Liz Read! Talk! 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hetty Naaijkens-Retel Helmrich[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a director of a film studio of questionable notability. Not seeing any significant coverage of this person other than a few brief mentions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:04, 25 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 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okeke Chika Jerry[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPOL. In a WP:BEFORE search, As a politician, there is only routine coverage of his candidacy for governor in 2021, along with opinion pieces by him about how he would govern. As an author, his name is mentioned in passing in a few books, such as inclusion in a list of novelists in the appendix of this book, but there isn't the level of substantial coverage of his work yet to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Wikishovel (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the subject's literary works have been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Per nom, the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No NPOL pass here. No comment on NAUTHOR. SportingFlyer T·C 09:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. 23.156.104.104 (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH - notable neither as a writer nor a politician. 21:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: well, it's not utterly not reliable sources, but the writer's work is only published in subsections of articles. thus fails notability for writers. fails WP:NPOL as coverage is routine as a political candidate. She was afairy 00:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 18:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Peters (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:07, 25 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! 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrone Pandy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:03, 25 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! 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Padilla[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:57, 25 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Beni Bahadur Singh[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Source in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  15:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are indisputably unreliable. The sources are blogs and self made sites that the whole page has been built upon. A simple search on this subject did not even bring any reliable sources forward to even vote this page to be Draftified. The subject is not notable to warrant a page on wikipedia. There is no significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His lifetime was during the British Raj, when nobility had no role in actual governance. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 28 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 CTV Sci-Fi Channel#Former programming. Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Top 10 Countdown[edit]

Space Top 10 Countdown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing to suggest this is a notable programme that meets the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per Cunard. No indication of notability, but a redirect is reasonable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above while preserving the page history as not notable at present, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 27 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 14:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-Native Database[edit]

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

This appears to be a marketing term largely associated with a single database project (Infinity DB) with which the article author may have a COI. Online search indicates a handful of other vector database projects use the term, but no coverage by secondary reliable sources. The concept may find enduring use outside buzzwords in time, but at least for now this appears premature. StereoFolic (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. StereoFolic (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there are a few dozen mentions of the term in academic literature. But the current article is a promotion piece for a single non-notable product, written by a SPA and likely COI. Owen× ☎ 15:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ESSAY. While I could find a few scholarly articles using the term ([12], [13]), these don't seem independent of the subject. WP:TNT at the very least to cut out the promotional tone and buzzwordy prose. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:44, 25 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 14:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kutais[edit]

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

Not finding anything in the sourcing to describe this battle. Admittedly is harder to research something that happened so long ago, but I haven't even been able to verify in an RS that this happened. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I searched for information on this battle in Russian through Google, Yandex and Google Scholar and found nothing.--Catlemur (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as keep per consensus on the new additions onto the article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suphalak[edit]

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

Only one non-primary source about the breed and it's a dead link excluded from the Wayback Machine. Doesn't meet notability even with the mention as it's just someone's attempt at creating a cat breed, all the well sourced information is unrelated to the supposed breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Copying my note from the talk page: "From what I could find, the position that Suphalak is distinct from Burmese indeed appears to come from people associated with TIMBA. But independent secondary sources have covered their breeding attempts and efforts to register the breed, at least as lately as 2022, so the original research concerns can be remedied by trimming the content down to what has been published. As the article mentions, most other people in Thailand just treat the name as a synonym for Burmese, but it takes the TIMBA's position as fact so that's also an NPOV issue." --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources include Nation TV[14] (2015), Matichon Daily[15] (2016), The Standard[16] (2017), Thai PBS[17] (2021), and Channel 8[18] (2022). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read Thai so I can't give much input on these sources. I looked at the Thai article and it appears to be just about the Burmese itself.
    I think the information would be better off put into Burmese (cat) as it doesn't even seem to be recognised as distinct aside from this TIMBA. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging SMcCandlish, who raised issues with the article back in 2019. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering all things, I'd suggest to redirect without prejudice to Burmese (cat) for now. There are probably enough secondary sources that have reported on TIMBA's position to support a much trimmed down version that properly balances the viewpoints, but until someone makes the effort to do that rewrite it'd be better to just point the name to what most other people use it for. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and summarize (from the sourced material, not from the entire article most of which is unsourced), but merge that to List of experimental cat breeds, since there is no evidence cited in our article about what the foundation stock was, including whether it was Burmese at all. What's happened here is that legendarily, there were solid copper-colored cats in the region mentioned in a work of very uncertain date (1351–1767). Modern breeders have attempted to "recreate" this alleged landrace variety as a new standardized breed, from stock they are cagey about. But their claims that this is "an ancient breed" going back to the Ayutthaya Kingdom cannot be sustained; this is typical breeder marking nonsense. Next, our own material has gotten a bunch of junk mixed in, including contradictory passages (first a claim that people were "confused" into thinking that the Suphalak was solid-colored and then a "correction" that it was solid colored), a bunch of name-dropping of individual non-notable breeders (more marketing), plus non-neutral material like personal-opinion claims about what a "proper Suphalak" is, and a bunch of unsourced claims about their genetics, etc. The fact that there are a grand total of six cats in the breeding program is not actually encouraging that this passes WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE at all, though a summary paragraph at the experimental breeds list would arguably serve readers better than no information at all, since people are apt to run into mentions of this at cat-related clickbait sites and want more details. PS: This single-breed club trying to establish the breed is by definition not WP:INDY and is not a reliable source for anything but WP:ABOUTSELF claims (e.g. what they say their breed standard is, how many cats are in their breeding program, etc., but not claims of antiquity or other potentially controversial material).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment support SMcCandlish on redirect and merge to experimental cat breeds list.
Traumnovelle (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Treatise on Cats, the historical written source where the name comes from, might be another potential redirect target, though ideally it should be expanded to actually mention the cats mentioned in the text first. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which redirect target is best?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if the breeders have stopped their efforts it's less appropriate for List of experimental cat breeds. There are no failed/forgone breeds listed in the article I believe.
Traumnovelle (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking further into this, I would oppose redirecting to List of experimental cat breeds, as that would imply a rather oversimplified reductionist view that the name refers only to the newly created breed, when in reality it's an old name, the understanding of which has been quite actively evolving, both in Thailand and among Western breeders. The name is recognised by The International Cat Association, who discussed using Suphalak cats from Thailand (as the term was understood in 2010) for outcrossing to improve genetic diversity in the Burmese breed.[19] There's more info on this at Messybeast.com,[20] which can probably be considered a self-published expert source.
    All that said, ideally the article should be rewritten to provide a proper overview covering the history, the evolving terminology, and the relationship to the Burmese breed, in a neutral, descriptive tone. Taking another look at the article, I don't think it's so bad that the current page needs to be removed in the meantime, so I'd be okay with either keeping or temporarily redirecting to Burmese cat, as I mentioned above. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It is still not clear where to redirect to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a disambiguation? They may be looking for mentions of the historical cat or they may be looking for the modern recreation attempt. There's no distinction between the historically mentioned cats and the contemporary experimental breed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there's no distinction suggests that this should be a WP:broad-concept article rather than a plain disambiguation page. In any case, I don't think the re-creation breed needs to be a separate article. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amending my position to keep. I've added some context to the article that I believe adequately addresses the issues I raised above for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The progress towards consensus has stalled a bit as a prior redirect !vote has been updated to keep. The article has been edited since nomination, it would be helpful if commenters decide if reassessment is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If I saw this before seeing the recent changes, i probably would have !voted to draftify or redirect, but the article looks to be in good shape now. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per recent changes which clarify its position vs Burmese cat. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 12:43, 28 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 14:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City of Blacktown Pipe Band[edit]

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

Zero secondary sources. Cannot locate sufficient sourcing to indicate notability per WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no usable secondary sources found in my search. Yes, the competitions technically make a WP:NBAND#9 case, but it seems to me that piping is an insular world, and that success in that field in no way correlates to actual coverage. Even in the three specialty sources for piping I found (pipedrums.com, pipingpress.com, bagpipe.news) this band lacked coverage. Searches in Trove, ProQuest, newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive also failed to find anything other than routine coverage, which convinces me that other offline sources probably don't exist. Mach61 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced, Mach61's comprehensive searches above prove that no reliable sourcing is available. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the only sourcing that exists online stem from publications about piping. WP:BAND#9 is loosely met but they aren't really major, couple of local/regional competitions, some national wins, though, but it's not only unsourced and doesn't seem notable. there's WP:OR here as well. She was afairy 01:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Haroun[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Macbeejack ☎ 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ogwo, Charles (28 October 2023). "Meet Haroun Yusuf: A life committed to healthcare, education, others". Business Day. Retrieved 26 February 2024. this is a full feature published by Business Day.
Edema, Grace (28 September 2023). "Leadership empowerment aids creativity, says medical expert". The Punch. Retrieved 26 February 2024. — this is a significant coverage from The Punch where this subject is considered an expert.
Koiki, Olusegun (12 February 2024). "Yusuf Haroun Shows Commitment to Health Equity, Catalysing Change". The Independent. Retrieved 26 February 2024. — another feature in a national daily.
I didn't do any WP:BEFORE as these articles where just in the Wiki entry. Best, Reading Beans 12:35, 26 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 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasser Meftah[edit]

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

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and disappeared after 2017. The best that I can find in Arabic is FilGoal and stories about players with similar names like Ismaël Bennacer and Majed Naser, which don't help matters. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:02, 25 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 and no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 15:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

V. B. Banjkowski[edit]

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

Non-notable. Google search only results in the Wikipedia page. A handful of mentions and attributions in the 1910s and 20s research papers, do not impose notability. X (talk) 08:36, 18 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, 25 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 Nullsoft. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullsoft Scriptable Install System[edit]

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

This article fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The sources cited in the article are primary sources, moreover, lacking comprehensive and authentic coverage of the subject matter. Additionally, the sources do not provide a thorough and detailed analysis of the topic, further diminishing the overall quality and credibility of the article. At this point, no sufficient secondary sources are available. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires in-depth and detailed coverage from third-party sources. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 15:57, 24 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, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It would be difficult to find coverage about many widely used installation software like NSIS. Installers are just uninteresting topics to report on. Another similarly widely used installer, Inno Setup also has only 2 non-primary sources, one of which is a guide and the other is what seems to be a blog in French giving a comparison of various installers. I could find similar sources for NSIS. Arnav Bhate (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of widely used installation softwares, but they don't have their own Wikipedia entries. And as I see it, Nullsoft Scriptable Install System and Inno Setup also have limited coverage and do not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. I believe that deletion or redirect would be the right decision. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Nullsoft, easily possible to cover there. IgelRM (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aram Mnatsakanov. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probka Restaurant Group[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Some coverage, but not enough. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 10 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) 11:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Aram Mnatsakanov - seems like the most logical decision as per WP:ATD. As it stands, this topic has no independent notability. HighKing++ 20:37, 27 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! 07:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Mabkhout[edit]

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

Not to be confused with Ali Mabkhout, who is notable. Rashid Mabkhout seemed to disappear after the 2018-19 season and I can find no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC #5 even when searching in Arabic. The best that I can find is FilGoal, which is just a database profile page. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:48, 25 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! 07:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbër Hebeja[edit]

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

Played a couple of professional games back in 2018 in the second tier in Albania but his career doesn't seem to have taken off after that. I wasn't able to find any decent coverage in Albanian media so it's hard to see a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG for Hebeja. I'm happy to assess sources if anyone finds any good ones. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 25 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 Almaty Metro. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avtovokzal[edit]

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

It isn't open, and with many of these projects, it is hard to know if/when they will. Possible merge/redirect to Almaty Metro or userify as WP:ATDs. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Almaty Metro until such time that sufficient secondary coverage can be established for the subject to have an independent article, with no prejudice against deletion if that is what others !vote for. I could not dig up any English language sources that discuss this subject explicitly (although there are mentions of other bus and metro stations with the same name in other countries). Further, Wikipedia is not a directory for every metro or subway station that exists (or is planned, but hasn't been built yet). MaterialsPsych (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only if unverifiable. Without speaking Kazakh it's extremely difficult to work out what coverage of this exists, but if it is verifiable that the station is planned to be constructed (or indeed is being or has been constructed) then it should be merged to the article about the metro or a list of station on the metro/line. If it's verifiable that it has been officially proposed or widely called for then again it should be merged. Only if unverifiable is deletion the appropriate course of action, but this needs attention from someone who can read Cyrillic (and ideally Kazakh). Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 08:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Almaty Metro unless someone can find sources to meet WP:GNG, right now it's just a WP:NTRAINSTATION. I also couldn't find any English language sources and agree that it needs attention from someone who can read Kazakh or potentially Russian. Shaws username . talk . 12:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avtovokzal" is a transliteration of "Автовокзал", the Russian for "bus station". Trivia question: do you know the etymology of "вокзал"? This gets in the way of searching and it seems that it may have led the author of this article to misinterpret the source. However, don't take my word as gospel on this - it is nearly 50 years since I studied Russian. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 00:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Delate[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. None of his roles are significant enough (I will admit his role as Truman Burbank’s “father” in The Truman Show was a crucial role in his career). The Film Creator (talk) 15:55, 18 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! 08:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NACTOR - he was in one big film. He has virtually zero social media presence. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 28 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 11:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Førre[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Article creator is blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is not the chronicler of every live gig in the jazz world. Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 18 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! 08:21, 25 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! 23:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Bunch[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, under WP:NJOURNALIST or any other notability criterion. RS cites and WP:BEFORE show only some RS writing by the subject, and not RS biographical coverage of the subject. This would be needed for a WP:BLP of the subject to be present in Wikipedia. Tagged for notability issues since 2019. A previous PROD in 2022 was removed on the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but the problems were not remedied in the years since. There appears to be no reasonable prospect of this article organically fixing itself - David Gerard (talk) 14:12, 18 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! 08:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hard when he has published so much, but did not find any substantive coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No available RS substantive coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:01, 26 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 11:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plenken[edit]

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

Topics do not appear to be notable. Both articles cite few sources, none of which seem to be RS, and I haven't been able to find any other sources that aren't blogs, forums, or otherwise self-published or user-generated. Rummskartoffel 10:45, 18 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! 08:20, 25 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! 23:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z CAM[edit]

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

Sources are not good. Only one even looks like one. But the window for draftification has passed. Content appears to have been split off from ZCam. The relevant guideline is WP:NORG, so being part of news stories is not enough. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:22, 18 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! 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Only the first source appears relevant at all, and the article isn't even about the company or its technology, but a brief digression about the US-China trade war. Everything here could be covered better in the main ZCam article. I could also support a merge to that article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subjects are not related. Other than being similarly-named brands revolving around digital camera products, they have nothing to do with each other. I have no interest in weighing in on this deletion, other than to express my opposition to re-adding this to ZCam. Dancter (talk) 03:44, 26 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 11:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verdeans in Canada[edit]

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

This does not seem like a notable intersection of nationalities, failing WP:CROSSCAT. The group is unusually small at 500 people to a few thousand, not surprising since Cape Verde is a small nation. The article is one of many iterations of former attempts to create "foreign relations" pages between every conceiveable combinations of countries, as well as ethnicity pages intersecting every nation on earth. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 18 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! 08:19, 25 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 11:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Matters[edit]

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

local journalism protal, non-notable per WP:NNEWS, coverage is among peer group, or trivial mentions User4edits (talk) 07:21, 18 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! 08:12, 25 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! 23:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRBD-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:43, 18 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, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely unsourced and no evidence to suggest notability. AusLondonder (talk) 13:12, 25 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! 07:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UFO convention[edit]

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

Page is unnecessary as each notable convention has it's own article and this has just become a list for unnotable conventions. Of the 11 listed as notable, only National UFO Conference (now defunk) is an actual notable UFO conference. Conspiracy Con is for conspiracies, MUFON has only a brief mention of symposium in the MUFON article. Giant Rock was a place where some UFO people gathered, not a convention. Roswell has a festival but even that is not a notable article. All the others currently mentioned are not notable. In popular culture section, is weak and some are only loosely associated with conventions. Two citations, one to Giant Rock and the other to MUFON. I think this article is only here to collect non-notable gatherings. Let each convention exist on it's own, and if we have enough that are notable, then have a UFO convention category. This is just unnecessary. Sgerbic (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete or listify. As an article this is a WP:OR mess, but maybe it could be renamed to a list of UFO conventions (keeping the list and removing the OR trivia about in popular culture)?
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:58, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify or if not delete. Preferably listify following above suggestion. Editing84 (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to List of UFO conventions per WP:NLIST. The conventions red-linked currently without Wikipedia articles could just be due to no one yet having compiled the necessary quality news media sources, which are likely to increase in the present era. 5Q5|✉ 13:19, 28 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! 07:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Seven[edit]

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

Not notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. I see it was deleted from trwiki as non-notable as well. When searching for sources it's possible to get results for a singer with same name, but there is really no SIGCOV for this journalist at all, all my attempts to find failed. Tehonk (talk) 07:09, 25 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCNZ-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Could merge into KOFY-TV as they share spectrum. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It got full writeups in the San Francisco Chronicle, Mercury News, and USA Today between 1998 and 2000. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:44, 18 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! 05:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per sources added by Sammi Brie, which I cannot access but AGF based on the editor and my impression of them that there is enough here. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: apart from clear WP:NSUSTAINED over the years, there is now strong sourcing both in local publications as well as international (like BBC) She was afairy 02:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EBikeGo[edit]

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

Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and the products section reads like promotional material. All of the coverage of this company seems to consist of trivial announcements (for example, product releases, funding, hiring, and acquisitions) in trade publications. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sbuject is notable accourding to WP:PSTS, other article are using same product section check Ather Energy, there might be some trivial articles but not all, there are my good sources attached to the article. Starcruexz (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcruexz: First, notability is not determined by PSTS. It is determined by WP:NCORP, the Wikipedia guideline for notability for corporations. Second, it would be helpful if you could provide three sources that you believe prove that this corporation is notable. Each of those sources should be (1) secondary, (2) independent of the company, and (3) reliable, and each source should (4) provide significant coverage of the corporation. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts pls check [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] Starcruexz (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some more [30][31] Starcruexz (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any of these were cited in the article at the time of my nomination, I don't think they establish notability. For other sources, it would be helpful if you could summarize what each source says. You might try {{ORGCRIT assess table}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Nominators concerns appear equally about the (bad) article quality, the sources exceed routine coverage. IgelRM (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are about notability. I noted the promotional tone because I think that is often relevant in deletion discussions. For example, some users might !vote to speedy delete an article for being unambiguous advertising or promotion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assessment of sources provided by Starcruexz below:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Financial Express No Seems to be based on press release/interview of company partnering with the article subject. Yes No Routine announcement of business partnership. Yes
Brands Equity No Interview published in a trade publication. Yes No Routine announcement of brand partnership. Yes
Economic Times Tech No Product announcement based on press release. Yes No Routine product announcement. Yes
India Today No Product announcement that appears to be based on a press release with no independent reporting or context. Yes No Routine product announcement. Yes
Economic Times Auto No Product announcement based on press release and quotes from company officials. Yes No Routine company acquisition announcement. Yes
Mint No The wrong source appears to be linked; this is a story about something completely unrelated. If the intent was to link to this story about a routine acquisition, I already noted in my nom that that source does not provide significant coverage. Yes
Business Standard No Announcement of setting up manufacturing plant based on press release and quotes from company officials. Yes No Routine announcement. Yes
Mint Appears to be based on press release. No Routine funding announcement. Yes
EnergyWorld No Interview with company founder and COO. Yes Yes Overview of what the company's plans are. Yes
News18 No Announcement of business partnership based on press release. Yes No Routine business partnership. Yes
Gadgets360 No Announcement of manufacturing plant based on company press release. Yes No Routine announcement. Yes

To meet the notability guideline for corporations, there must be multiple sources, each of which must have significant coverage in independent and secondary reliable sources. Coverage is not significant if it is based on routine announcements and coverage is not independent if it is based on reporting that substantially repeats press releases (churnalism). None of the sources above meet those guidelines and I have not found any other sources that establish this company's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has a whopping 56 sources cited, and the above is just short of 20% of those sources (assuming that there are no repeat citations in the article). It is unlikely that the remaining sources cited in the article establish notability; just skimming through the list of references and looking at their titles and publications show that they appear to be largely routine announcements about some of the same events provided in the above sources). In any event, I note that the burden in a deletion discussion is on those arguing to keep an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this is a non-notable company and very likely the article is promotional: but whatever the case, someone has gone to a lot of trouble to assemble a large number of insignificant sources to make it look as if there's something worth noting here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources would you deem not "insignificant"? There are similar articles on Ola Electric and Ather Energy. IgelRM (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about article X is not a good argument at AfD. The existence of an article does not imply that a topic itself is notable. Those pages might also fail NCORP; Ather Energy has been tagged as promotional for 6 months. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The page existence doesn't have in-depth, independent coverage about the "company" by the journalist. Major sources are all about launches, funding, and expansion. Lordofhunter (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and all delete-votes, not notable. BoraVoro (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a good press campaign that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. A lot of churunalism but nothing in-depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CNMall41@BoraVoro@Chiswick Chap@Voorts i will try to solve the issue and find and add some reliable source, meanwhile i would like to know that what is the meaning of significant covrage and indepentent souce ?, please send me some links from Ola Electric or any silimer article to understand your prospctive on significant covrage and indepentent souce.
    significant covrage might be the issue but in my knowladge all the links that i have added is indepentent souce for exmple all the source in the above table is not directly related to eBikeGo. Starcruexz (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcruexz:, you are the second editor to bring up Ola Electric so hopefully you saw the previous response. Many of the links provided by those voting are what you will need to review. For instance, WP:NCOPR is the main guideline. You can review WP:ORGCRIT which will help you determine the proper sources to use and also WP:CORPDEPTH to understand the depth of coverage needed to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcruexz: I have an explanation of what I think significant coverage means in a user essay that I've written. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts Thanks let m check Starcruexz (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Voorts i found some sources with mentions of EBikeGo on scholor, pls check [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] Starcruexz (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcruexz: I am not your research assistant. It is your responsibility to explain why you think these sources are independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12 and 13 are the same source, authored by an organization that "collaborates with industry" and EBikeGo is only mentioned once on page 8. 14 only mentions EBikeGo once on page 13. 15 is by the same people as sources 12 and 13, and EBikeGo is again only briefly mentioned once on page 100. 16 mentions EBikeGo twice on pages 65 and 67.
None of these contain significant coverage, which requires detailed discussion of the company.
In the future, please explain why the sources you are providing contain significant coverage. Posting links and asking others to do the work for you is not how AfD discussions should go. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 27 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 2024 Icelandic presidential election#Candidates as a viable ATD. Keep arguments do not make the case for why this candidate is exempt from general N:POL or why she's notable outside her candidacy. History is preserved should she win Star Mississippi 15:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigríður Hrund Pétursdóttir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage. One of several minor canditates for the president of Iceland. Of the sources in the article, the sigridurhrund.is article is not independent of the subject, Vísir article is not SIGCOV and is based on an announcement from an organization she worked for and the RÚV article is based on her own announcement that she is running for president. A search for sources turned up some interviews and mentions, but nothing significant. Alvaldi (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: The poll on the election page shows Sigríður as the favorite. We can delete later, if/when she falls in support. Inspector Semenych (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Inspector Semenych Firstly, she has a at best 8% support according to those polls. Secondly, per WP:POLITICIAN being an unelected candidate for political office is not enough for a subjects article to be kept. Either she passes WP:GNG or she doesn't. Currently, there is no evidence that she does. Alvaldi (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand from a quick google search I found a bunch of articles talking about her which aren't included on her page. Include those and she should be able to pass WP:BIO. Scu ba (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scu ba Could you please show the best WP:THREE of them that constitute as a significant coverage that help her pass WP:GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, 1 2 3 4 5 admittedly, I don't know enough about Icelandic media to know if these are tabloid websites, but I think one of these is already cited on her page. Scu ba (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Scu ba The Heimildin article is almost entirely based of her statement which is not independent of the subject. With the lack of independent prose by the journalist, it is not significant coverage. The Vísir.is article is a large article that mostly focuses on the history of the presidency. It does have around four paragraphs on her that are independent. The bpwiceland2022.is article is not independent of the subject. It is a website of a conference where she was one of the speakers. The Dagblaðið Vísir article is based entirely on her announcement and includes a single line of independent prose. The FKA source is not indepentent of her as it is from the Association of Businesswomen in Iceland where she was the chairman. Alvaldi (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "almost entirely based of her statement" yeah, they reported... on her statement... not sure how you can write an article about someone running for president if you we can't use articles that quote her announcing she's running for president.
    We can mention she spoke at the BWP conference and the chairwomen of the FKA, not sure why that can't be included.
    Scu ba (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is fine to use them in some cases as a source, non-independent sources, such as works or statements produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it, cannot be used to establish notability per WP:Notability. Also note that WP:SUSTAINED significant coverage is required for the subject to be considered per WG:GNG. A brief burst of coverage, such as a few articles around an announcement is not enough. Alvaldi (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The other thing is we typically redirect candidates who are only notable for being candidates to their election page, or delete them. Just receiving coverage for running for something isn't enough. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That too, but the articles also give a brief biography of her. I've got a feeling that this is going to turn into another Ryan Binkley situation, a minor candidate for US president that had his page deleted 3 times because despite him having dozens of articles written about him, all of them are in the context of the presidential election. This page might have jumped the gun with making it so early, but she is only going to become more relevant as the campaign develops. Scu ba (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, the poll that she had 8% support in was twofold. The first question was, who would you like as the next president. In that poll, she received less than five total votes. Not percent of the votes, but total votes. The second question was, which one of the five persons who have officially decleared their candidacy for president they would choose, if any, 8 percent choice her while 77 percent choice "None of the above". In a poll conducted in February by Gallup, she didn't gather a vote. So whatever feelings you are having towards this candidate, it is not shared by the Icelandic population. That said, the inclusion of articles on Wikipedia are not based on feelings, they are based on sources. So either the subject has multiple sources of significant sources over a significant period of time or she doesn't have an article. Alvaldi (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of proposed source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source analysis was requested. Three of the presented sources are just how she announced her presidential campaign, which we basically automatically exclude under NPOL as candidate coverage, and the exception - that the campaign itself was so notable she's a notable candidate - does not apply. The fourth is just a profile from an organisation she works with (not secondary), and the fifth appears to be some sort of non-interview interview (not secondary). She is simply a political candidate who does not yet qualify for an article - if additional sources are found that make her notable outside of her candidacy, or she wins, we can keep/restore the article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2024 Icelandic presidential election#Candidates. Policy-based arguments so far are against retention. One "keep" argues with polls, which are irrelevant, and another proposes sources which were convincingly shown not to meet WP:GNG's requirements. Given that notability remains possible if further sources are found, the appropriate WP:ATD for now is a redirect to the election. Sandstein 14:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFRZ-LD[edit]

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

Station does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:34, 18 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! 04:38, 25 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. The sources found by Elemimele have not been addressed or rebutted. Sandstein 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newell's car-following model[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Traffic flow theory could be a suitable WP:ATD but I felt it would unbalance that article. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 18 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! 04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- dozens of high quality sources in a scholar source. Failure of WP: BEFORE> Central and Adams (talk) 05:35, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Retail Park[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 18 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! 04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for the same reasons as Garuda3. The retail park has attracted wider attention because of its recent pruchase by a neighbouring local authority. Sionk (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spooks characters. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Evershed[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. It could redirect to Spooks but it may unbalance that article, or to the actress. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 18 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! 04:32, 25 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 Computational biology. Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution in Variable Environment[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:01, 18 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! 04:32, 25 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket player auction[edit]

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

It's not a distinct topic that meets WP:GNG.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple news describing the topic in depth (e.g. IPL Auction 2024 rules: How players are sold - and unsold). Also, many scientific papers (e.g. 10.1109/IC3I.2014.7019707) Geysirhead (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Indian Premier League#Player acquisition, squad composition, and salaries per nom. This article is entirely about IPL auctions and its content is better suited there. Arnav Bhate (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. The article is being improved. It was created today. Give the creator some time. It should probably have been created in the draft namespace and then moved after completion. Arnav Bhate (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bangladesh Premier League does it too. Geysirhead (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Geysirhead (talk) 11:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Geysirhead (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions.Geysirhead (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.Geysirhead (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When will this recent inundation of useless and pointless cricket articles stop? AA (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not only about cricket. The topic of selling people on auction from societal and political points of view, the auction-theoretic and financial aspects are also important in this article. There are 167 scientific papers mentioning IPL auction. Geysirhead (talk) 08:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't need a general article about this, not least because every cricket tournament that uses an auction format uses a different format that is explained on that event's articles. No need for this general, catch all article. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal It can be moved to a more general topic like Auctioning players in sports, since MLB auction also does it. Auction formats and the innerconnected research on that topic can be listed there.There are a lot of resources such as academic papers on player auctions in sports. Wikipedia is not a promotion site for any sport art. WP:PROMOTION Geysirhead (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Joseph2302, we don't need the topic in a separate article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: @Rugbyfan22: every cricket tournament that uses an auction format uses a different format that is explained on that event's articles
    Firstly, there is no comprehensive list of links to these articles in the comments. Second, the articles to be referenced do not cover research and discussion of the practice of auctioning as a whole at their current stat. Therefore, the argument is not entirely valid, and we still need a general article on this topic. This general article would cover the practice of auctioning players in sports leagues without the need to WP:FORK the general content into specific articles for each league. Geysirhead (talk) 12:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I AFDed this article because I disagree that "cricket player auction" in particular meets WP:GNG, or needs an article. That's not to say there's nothing encyclopedic to be extracted from the sources about player auctions in sports (most notably IPL). The question of whether there is a new article to be written is a valid one. Cricket player auction is definitely not that article, as I have said. Is cricket player auctions an article worth writing? Is Player auctions in sports? Or Player auction? I am not sure this AFD is a good place to discuss that. I would support userfying or draftifying the article to give the author opportunity to discover what encyclopedic topic it is that they want to write about and have discovered the sources for. That said, I just noticed upon previewing this very comment that the author has gone ahead and started player auction. I do not know adding to the mess was helpful. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The debate here is deeply frustrating. So far, the cricket community has dominated the discussion, with no evidence to deny the existence of general encyclopaedic content for "Cricket Player Auction" that should not be spread across multiple articles. It speaks to the pervasive unwillingness to understand points of view outside one's own community. It is incumbent upon all of us to challenge our own biases, cultivate empathy, and strive to foster a culture of inclusivity, tolerance, and understanding. Thank you for taking the time to consider my concerns. Geysirhead (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geysirhead please WP:AGF. There has been no evidence that we need a general article about this topic, this has nothing to do with challenge our own biases, cultivate empathy, and strive to foster a culture of inclusivity, tolerance, and understanding. Please don't accuse others of these things based on misinformation. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no evidence that we need a general article about this topic
    1) There is a body of academic literature on predicting prices in player auctions in general (e.g. Valuing Cricketers Using Hedonic Price Models).
    2) There are expressed societal concerns which are not resticted to the auction format in a certain league (e.g. IPL auction; A cattle parade? Yet, so irresistible?).
    3) The issue of such auctions being TV shows is also of general character. Geysirhead (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Player auctions in cricket are not sui generis, the current player auction article is enough for the topic. 95% of the sources used are about the IPL auction anyway, which might actually represent a notable topic in the vein of NBA draft. AryKun (talk) 11:39, 28 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 TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's My Job (Philippine TV program)[edit]

That's My Job (Philippine TV program) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was unsourced since 2008. GBooks, GNews and GNews Archives did not provide substantial results. Alternatively, redirect to List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. --Lenticel (talk) 03:17, 25 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! 01:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalberg Global Development Advisors[edit]

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

Article offers no sources independent of the subject. Checked Google Street View for a few of their international locations provided on company's website, and all looked like coworking spaces or virtual offices, although it's not impossible that this consultancy business indeed uses them. Article created by an editor banned for paid editing. — kashmīrī TALK 02:54, 25 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! 01:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fightin' Words[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources for this article, thereby failing WP:GNG. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 02:51, 25 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! 00:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Liniņa[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Latvian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2020, 2023, 2024, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:37, 25 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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senada Ceman[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 00:33, 25 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! 00:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kiwanuka[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. A COI page from which others have previous removed inappropriate content. What is left is not viable as a BLP for anyone or for an academic. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:09, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_25&oldid=1211716796"