Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 04	February 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Interactive Media Manager[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to prove WP:N. No good WP:ATD. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this software, hits are all about cloud stuff now. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following sources for IMM: [1][2]book [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Oaktree. Amuckabak (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SharePoint as an ATD. Fails NPRODUCT. Regarding the sources provided above: 1 and 2 are press release, book is from a self-publishing press (CreateSpace), 3 is ROUTINE coverage of the product shutting down, 4 is routine coverage in a trade publication, 5, 7, and 8 are the same source, and is a technical manual about how the software implements Web Ontology Language, 6 is a brief mention, and 9 is also a brief mention. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:42, 8 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. Consensus among established editors is clear. There may also be some paperwork incoming, but a relist isn't needed Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC) ETA: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Emma knows it well closed indicating all those arguing in favor were socks. However the consensus to delete is sufficient among established editors that a relist isn't needed. Star Mississippi 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, all available coverage is work written by Baron or interviews of Baron, not independent coverage about Baron. The initial editor has disavowed a conflict of interest on their talk page but has not addressed the fact that they uploaded a close-range photograph of the subject to Commons in 2021. N.b., this subject appears entirely unrelated to prior articles created at the title Michael Baron. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Russia, and Australia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for highlighting the photo issue. I was translating the profile from Vietnamese + adding more recent info i could find and when googling for suitable photos (I later added the photo for the vietnamese wiki profile as well) I did not pay attention whether it was close-ranged or not just made sure it was for the right person. I will try to find a better photo as well as check for more coverage of Baron's work available in English Emma knows it well (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe unreleated to the AfD in question, but if you claim you were "googling for suitable photos", how come you uploaded it as "own work"? This constitute a likely violation of copyright. --Broc (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added link to his ORCID profile that includes over 200 research/academic works Emma knows it well (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/probability-and-statistics/9781439875919/

This is a Michael Baron book with another one being less Data Science Focused (using more ancient analytics techniques I believe :):

https://www.amazon.com.au/Integration-Marketing-Communications-Historical-Development/dp/383832272X

He was also representing Australia in The Data Science Foundation at some point apparently. DataScientist1986 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DS,

I've googled DS Foundation and Found it. I will add to his profile tomorrow. Emma knows it well (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Emma knows it well (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff counts for nothing. For notability the stuff has to be cited by others, which is not the case here. The ORCID profile just contains vapid puffery. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I believe I've seen artcile or presentation referring to him as the creator or one of the creators of the Square Zero predictive analytics Model - It has been a while though since I looked into Predictive Analytics so I will probably need to google it up again. But his name is definitely familiar to some of those who are engaged in Data Analytics. DataScientist1986 (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, just produce some RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Inadequate RS as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep !, His contribution in Data Science is quite significant and I had a look at his involvement as referencing his profile in the COVID investigations in Australia as well as his articles, he is definitely a significant scholar ! Rapanomics (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to produce a better source than your unsupported opinion. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete lacks notability and no reliable sources have been produced so far. --Broc (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So my initial profile creation was translation of his profile from Vietnamese Wiki so I tried to simply translate content that was there at the time without adding anything (as suggested for wiki page translation) now on the basis of the feedback recieved I've tried to a) remove some references to his writings and interviews (I thought that being published/interviewed by well-known media outlets is significant) Now the English version looks different from the Vietnamese one. Also, the Vietnamese profile was created many years ago so, I've been able to locate (thank you DataScientist1986 for the lead) his activities as part of the Data Science Foundation leadership & new COVID-related work Emma knows it well (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, Baron is notable enough to keep the profile in Wiki not only becase his textbooks are prescribed texts in colleges and he is being interviewed by some people to give his opinion but also because he has been invited to Parliament as a subject matter expert. I think this quite significant. DataScientist1986 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be quite significant as googling him does show some media coverage. BulgarianCat (talk) 10:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shibakali Mondal[edit]

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

I haven't seen a single reliable citation on this subject to verify notability. Also article appears to be highly unsourced. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thewikizoomer (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and West Bengal. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 23:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KADF-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This station did not achieve SIGCOV even when it was an Azteca América outlet. A redirect to a list of Bridge News stations may be viable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is yet another run of the mill TV station that lacks significant notability for a Wikipedia page. TH1980 (talk) 03:00, 11 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 23:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor with an obvious conflict of intererest " Sr. Communications Specialist with the Global Alliance to Prevent Prematurity and Stillbirth, ". 5 of the 11 sources are its own website. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Washington. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nomination. This has been WP:REFBOMB'ed with primary sources and sources which don't mention the org. TarnishedPath^talk 13:28, 9 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lingerie Basketball League[edit]

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

A city league with four teams that at best played two seasons. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV during a search that included Newspapers.com. Alvaldi (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Alvaldi (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The two existing sources make for SIGCOV, though I agree it’s not clear this will have enduring notability. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WilsonP NYC Of the sources, this has no information about the league other than a short blurb about one of its players. The Fox article is about lingerie athletic leagues in general and has no information about the basketball league other than mentioning that Jenny McCarthy's watched her sister play in a game. So no, the two existing sources do not make for significant coverage, not even close. Alvaldi (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My judgement is that the Fox News story qualifies as a profile, given the league is the lede and subject of the first two paragraphs. How about we see what everyone else thinks? Despite your comment I think it is, in fact, “close.” WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WilsonP NYC When the only thing about the league that can be extracted from those paragraphs are the name of the league and that a notable person watched its unnamed sibling playing in it then that is not significant coverage about that league. It is the literal definition of a trivial mention per WP:SIGCOV. From that source we can write the following article "The Lingerie Basketball League was a basketball league where Jenny McCarthy's sister once played in." Not exactly encyclopedic stuff. Alvaldi (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Alvaldi. The two sources mentioned above are clearly passing mentions with no encyclopedic coverage.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a silly enough publicity stunt that you'd expect there to be a good deal of coverage; has anybody tried to track some down? jp×g 🗯️ 00:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I noted in the nomination I did but was unable to find any. It should also be noted that GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. So even if there was a brief burst of coverage around the beginning of the league but nothing more then it would still fail our notability guidelines. Alvaldi (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I read WP:SUSTAINED to say "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.", which does not mean a subject does not have to have a continual flow of coverage to be notable. I have been around WP:AFD a long time and have never even seen SUSTAINED as a rational for deletion. WP:NTEMP (a different section of the same guideline) states "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage."-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been around WP:AFD a long time and have never even seen SUSTAINED as a rational for deletion. What? It's used as a rationale regularly, although often misattributed as BLP1E or BIO1E for bios. NTEMP just means the topic doesn't have to have current coverage if it received appropriately sustained coverage sometime in the past. It's not an exemption from SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen BIO1E often. A league that last a few years is a different thing than a BIO1E. Really don't recall SUSTAINED.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no significant coverage of this league whatsoever, neither a brief burst of one nore sustained. Brief and trivial mentions do not indicate notability per GNG. You should know this as an experienced editor. Furthermore, there are no indications that this league lasted more than its first year, which in reality was a only few games played by four teams in a span of less than a month. Alvaldi (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG - the sources in the article don't cut it, I don't think. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Of the current sources, the first is a short piece about a single player that lacks significant coverage, the second is not about the league, ditto for the third. Not able to find any other sources that would help this pass the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medinfar[edit]

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

No references used here, I could only find press releases online. TLA (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are definitely some sources out there, but maybe not enough t support an article. Here's an interview with the CEO and a dissertation about processes at the company. Also plenty of mentions and routine coverage (mostly in Portuguese). Eluchil404 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 9 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. No clear consensus after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tapiwa Trust Chikohora[edit]

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

BLP of an unsuccessful political candidate who does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Zimbabwe. Mccapra (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the leader of the country's chamber of commerce and a presidential candidate in last years election, I started the article seeing as the coverage of Zimbabwean politics on Wikipedia is poorly covered compared to other countries. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per [10], [11]. The rest of the sources do not meet WP:SIGCOV, but these two meet unless there is something I'm not seeing. I didn't do any further search. // Timothy :: talk 23:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- First link clearly fails WP:INDEPENDENT. Second link is likely to be candidate-provided information, and is fairly routine within an election cycle. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2023 Zimbabwean general election: There are minimal Gnews hits, and none appears to be both independent and significant. Chair of a Chamber of Commerce is not presumptively notable (eg: Suzanne P. Clark of the United States Chamber of Commerce or the leaders of the ACCI). Nor are founders of minor political parties (they got 0.23% in the election and no seats). He was also Secretary General of the minor Renewal Democrats of Zimbabwe party. A future better redirect target might be Zimbabwe Coalition for Peace and Development Party (although that might end up with a Redirect result at a subsequent AFD) or as part of a capsule description of the ZCPD at List of political parties in Zimbabwe (in which case other minor political parties should likewise receive a brief capsule each). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:31, 5 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristram the Younger[edit]

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

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

Delete Non-notable minor literary figure. Historicity is debatable, and i was unable to find any secondary sources discussing this figure, no WP:SIGCOV. Tooncool64 (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Redirect to Tristan~~ - Amusingly, this got nominated just as I was about to redirect it. There's good secondary coverage on the Italian romance (I due Tristani), so I added a reference to it and Tristram the Lesser at Tristan. Suriname0 (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Italy. Suriname0 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. See for example [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] and the works of Seidenspinner-Nunez and others mentioned therein, or alluded to, including works in Spanish and Italian, and some that may not be online, including some of these. Since the second book of the Two Tristans is about "Tristan the younger" (AKA Tristano il giovane, Tristan el joven, Tristan de leonis el joven, etc), the result is that roughly half the coverage of the Italian "Due Tristani" and the Spanish "Coronica" is about him. I am under the impression that he was invented by the author of the Coronica. James500 (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is convincing, thanks. Should we cover Tristan the younger in his own article, or should we just create an article for the Two Tristans and discuss it there? Suriname0 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the character can sustain his own article. James500 (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on sources found, I withdraw my nom. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:53, 6 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 02:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Butt[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not yet notable WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. All minor acting roles so far. What's cited here already is all of the reliable sources I could find online in English or Urdu, and all are primary sources: interviews, and an appearance on a TV panel game show. The only secondary coverage I could find was passing mentions in TV articles. Editors wishing to search should note that the first name is sometimes spelled "Osman" in English, and the surname is sometimes spelled "Bhatt". There's a lot of secondary coverage of the unrelated actor Osman Khalid Butt (عثمان خالد بٹ), so I tried to exclude "Khalid" (خالد) from the search, but still couldn't improve on the sources cited. Wikishovel (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:Notable actor appeared in mainstream channels on Pakistani television. As far as your search results are concerned, yes since there is Osman Khalid Butt who is a more popular actor, his results overtake Usman Butt search results. If you'll google him mentioning his projects, you'll find his interviews.182.182.57.188 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)— 182.182.57.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interviews are WP:Primary sources, and don't contribute to notability per WP:BIO. What's needed here is WP:Independent, WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His interview does cover how he started his modeling career and later acting. Usman's interview with The News International is a major newspaper in Pakistan.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:DD7E:47CD:1682:90FC (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)) — 2400:ADCC:105:2200:DD7E:47CD:1682:90FC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interviews are WP:Primary sources, and don't contribute to notability per WP:BIO. What's needed here is WP:Independent, WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article (interviews) and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth; Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, fails WP:IS, "The handsome young man tells Ally Adnan why he is more than just a pretty"	1. "Usman Butt – Good Times". Good Times Magazine. 1 July 2018.
Another interview, fails WP:IS	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Khan, Asif (19 January 2024). "Usman Butt". thenews.com.pk.
Another interview, fails WP:IS	Mazaaq Raat", Dunya News, archived from the original on 5 February 2024, retrieved 11 December 2018
Another interview, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "'Baat Cheet' with Usman Butt". The Nation. 3 July 2018.
Another interview, fails WP:IS	5. ^ "Sexual abuse of newcomers is rampant in show business: Usman Butt". Daily Times. 5 June 2018.
Database record	6. ^ "Telefilem Sampai Jannah (TV2)". Myinfotaip. 6 September 2022. Retrieved 20 September 2023.

BEFORE found interviews/promos, name mentions/listings, nothing with SIGCOV. Keep votes provide no sourcing. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 02:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League Super Strikes Update[edit]

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

Non-notable collectable cards. Nominating for deletion alongside Champions League Super Strikes pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Football, and United Kingdom. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:MILL, and can't find any obvious third party sources to use as reference. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 6 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. Without sourcing to verify the connection, a redirect isn't viable here. Star Mississippi 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League Super Strikes[edit]

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

Non-notable collectable cards. Nominating for deletion alongside Champions League Super Strikes Update. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Football, and United Kingdom. pinktoebeans ^(talk) 20:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as Champions League Super Strikes Update. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Unlike the other article, which can be deleted, I'd say redirect to Panini Group, as a possible search term. Govvy (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the redirect if Panini Group mentioned Champions League Super Strikes at all. I'd be happy to add it, unfortunately I can't find any reliable independent reference covering Champions League Super Strikes and its connection to Panini Group. If a redirect were to be added in its current state, it would be confusing. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:42, 6 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Brewer[edit]

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

Reads like a family history project, no indication of passing WP:GNG? Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG As background, Sandy Hook Pilots were some of the most important pilots in American naval history. Multiple reliable sources confirm Brewer played a key role in the early days of the Sandy Hook Pilots Association and the formation of the Sandy Hook Pilot Boat company. The following secondary sources support his notability.
Russell, Charles Edward (1929). From Sandy Hook to 62°. New York: Century Co. p. 114. OCLC 3804485.
Allen, Edward L. (1922). Pilot Lore From sail to Steam. New York: The United New York and New Jersey Sandy Hook Pilots Benevolent Associations. p. 38.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greghenderson2006 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since GNG and coverage exist. Agree with GregHenderson. The sources support the notability. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you also wrote both articles Sandy Hook Pilots and Sandy Hook Pilots Association he is not mentioned in either of them? Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brewer is not mentioned in the source [19]? Theroadislong (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on an in-depth analysis of the sources. I am not understanding what this person is supposedly notable for. He was born, he was part-owner of three boats, a boat pilot, he started an organization with four others pilots, none of which inherently confers notability. He then got married, had children who had children, then died. The vast lion’s share of the article is not about him at all, but about the boats that he partially owned,. At first glance this looks like a well-sourced article, but it is pieced together with bits of trivia about him, and many sources that do not mention him at all. A source analysis table is offered below. If it is collapsed, click on "show" on the right hand side. My comment continues below the table.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-obituary/81000252/	Death announcement - probably placed by the family as it mentions the funeral is at his daughter's house	in a newspaper	death announcement, no editorial content	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/From_Sandy_Hook_to_62_̊/7KBOAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1	published book		Does not mention him at all	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-duncuff/81003880/	death announcent for his grandson, likely placed by family	newspaper	It only mentions that Walter Brewer was his grandfather, no editorial coverage.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-death/81003478/	Death announcement for his wife, probably placed by family	newspaper	It only mentions that she was married to Walter Brewer, no editorial content	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-went-ashore/75223840/	newspaper	NYTimes	Short press statement that he was a 1/6th owner of a boat that crashed - name check only	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/pilotlorefromsai00unit/page/38/mode/2up?q=Virginia	book published by the Sandy Hook Pilots Association	~	Does not mention him at all, only a boat he partially owned that crashed	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-daily-herald-wm-h-aspinwall/72622612/		newspaper	Short press release about the launch of a boat he partially owned, name check only	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-tribune-wreck/72624076/		newspaper	Doesn't mention him at all, it's a press release about a boat wreck	✘ No
https://research.mysticseaport.org/item/l0179721877/	shipping record	shipping record	A search does not find his name; maritime shipping record	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Annual_Report_of_the_Operations_of_the_U/HIEDAAAAYAAJ?hl=en	published book	Gov't printing office	Does not mention him at all, only the mention of a boat he partially owned that wrecked	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/20464636/	? unverifiable - not sure if this is an ad, an announcement or an article - I couldn't find it in a search	NY Times	? unverifiable, but seems like an announcement for a meeting	? Unknown
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016025/1880-10-25/ed-1/seq-4/#date1=1880&index=1&date2=1881&searchType=advanced&language=&sequence=0&words=America+boat+pilot&proxdistance=5&state=&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=&phrasetext=pilot+boat+America&andtext=&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1	newspaper		Does not mention him at all	✘ No
https://research.mysticseaport.org/item/l0179721900/	shipping record	shipping record	Does not mention him at all	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-leahy/81037234/	newspaper	newspaper	Name check only, he was one of many who inspected a boat	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-world-charitable-fund/81037050/	newspaper		Name check only, stating he was secretary of his organization	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-sandy-hook-pilo/81014483/	Newspaper		Press release that he is 1/5th owner of a company - standard incorporation announcement	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-tribune-combine/81030358/	newpaper		short article on incorporation and some controversy related to it, that mentions him in a name check.	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/-pilots/81031012/	newspaper		Article about the controvercy surrounding the company he partially owned, does not mention him by name	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/new-york-daily-herald-fees/81035772/	newspaper		Article on the organization controversy, a single name-check only as one of the partners.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

This seems like a clear WP:GNG fail to me. If you actually read the sources in the source assessment chart they are all trivial mentions, don't mention him at all and are about other people or boats he partially owned, or the controversy surrounding an organization in which he was a secretary. Also seems like WP:SYNTH. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination and the source analysis from Netherzone, does not pass WP:GNG. Note, there was some previous discussion of a group of articles like this, see Template talk:List of Sea Captains and Pilots where this article is one of a small number remaining that does not have a reason for notability listed, nor has been deleted. Melcous (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am a hearty inclusionist, but I do not see a valid case for notability here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Shadow311 (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bonnici[edit]

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

AFD requested by 92.52.232.134 reason: Not a notable person. Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Shadow311 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Limited amount of coverage in RS about her trip to the Eurovision contest [20], but trivial coverage. Interview [21]. This is probably the best [22] and this [23] . Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER#9. Worst case, draftity up to and until the Eurovision Song Contest. Geschichte (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER#11 + #12 by virtue of this from the European Broadcasting Union. Moreover, it's hard for me to extend AGF to 92.52.232.134 as whoever is behind this IP address has also made non-sourced and bogus attempts to contribute to this article, such as this and this. How can their AFD request be taken seriously? This is a waste of time. --ToniSant (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER #9 and #12; more than anything else imho I don't think we should consider ADF on the part of the user since she has caused continual vandalism through rollbacks to insert their own version of the page without a source attesting to what she has written (the hypothetical American origins or that she is the sole survivor of a hypothetical tragedy involving her entire family), not to mention citing false merits that her song would have achieved. --Dominikcapuan (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above votes. WP:SINGER is clearly met. Seeing as the AfD was requested by an IP editor who was repeatedly trolling the page (as highlighted above), maybe the nominator (pinging @Shadow311: for this) could consider withdrawing this? ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Malta in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines for a standalone article as nearly all significant sources are due to the upcoming Eurovision participation. So far, this is their only notable activity; therefore WP:BLP1E. Would also support draftifying. Grk1011 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per others and the fact that the AfD was requested by a troll who has been vandalizing the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:00, 6 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Raja[edit]

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

The first ref cites the subject’s Wikipedia page, the second and third are about his brief arrest and release. I couldn’t find any better sources so the subject seems not to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Internet, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with this. Firstly, you deleted the previous info that was edited. Now you're saying that you're gonna delete this because the it's not notable? He is very popular. He has 1.3 Million followers on Twitter. He's a very trendy person but I don't get why you're doing all this. Please stop this and let people actually make some edits on this page. Thank you. TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are reason I believe you shouldn't delete this:

- Adil Raja is a famous journalist

- Adil Raja was the Spokesperson of the Pakistan Ex Servicemen Society

- Adil Raja is a famous whistle blower

- Adil Raja has almost half a million followers on Twitter

- He gets millions of views per month on his tweets

- Adil Raja's YouTube channel was the fastest growing journalist channel but for some reasons, they illegally banned it TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of other information about him that's not included in this page. Maybe if you allow people to add that info, you won't say "seems not to be notable". TIRRIT3123 (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TIRRIT3123: Thanks can you please show reliable independent sources discussing the subject in depth? Mccapra (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can buy followers on Twitter, so that doesn't help notability, as you can views on Youtube. Spokesman for the Society is a PR job, which doesn't add to notability. If you can provide articles about his work as a journalist, not stuff he's written, we'd look at that. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Mccapra's request for sources. Even for "famous-X" we need citations. I did a quick search in UK newspapers and did not find anything about him being detained (not arrested) in the UK. From the news articles in the wiki page this does not seem to be more than a single incident of not great import. Barring sources that would support his fame, it has to be delete per WP policy. I'll cycle back to see if anything changes. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree. There are a ton of different articles on him. Please search "Adil Raja" on Google, then go to news. There are dozens of articles on him. Even by the most popular news companies in Pakistan. There is more relevant information which is missing but you didn't add. Especially about his illegal court martial. The official Pakistan Army Public Relations website released information about that but it's not added. So I think your opinion on him not being important is totally wrong. So, whoever nominated this page for deletion, please undo that. If you have any more questions or counter arguments, please share them. I'll make sure to reply Thank you. WarriorYt43 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a ton of them, please show links here to the three best pieces of in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go

www.dawn.com/news/amp/1792427

https://www.tribune.com.pk/story/2423051/fia-to-bring-back-adil-raja-other-miscreants-sitting-abroad%3famp=1

https://pakobserver.net/pakistan-armys-former-officers-adil-raja-haider-mehdi-convicted-over-espionage/

www.thenews.com.pk/amp/1091959-adil-raja-admits-to-defaming-serving-officer-in-uk-court 2601:282:1F32:681E:4485:E5DF:7AEA:C1DA (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Fails RS, disclaimer on page states, "Disclaimer: This information has been collected from Google. If you would like to add or remove any information from this page, please contact us"	1. Sumiya (5 May 2023). "Major Adil Raja Wikipedia, Age, Wife, Family, & Biography". Mag Pakistan. Retrieved 15 October 2023.
Article about interaction with law enforcement	2. ^ "Adil Raja 'arrested' in London; Sabir, Moeed booked for sedition". The Express Tribune. 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-10-15.
Article about interaction with law enforcement	3. ^ "Youtuber Major (r) Adil Raja released after detained by British police". Daily Pakistan Global. 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-10-15.

Keep votes provided nothing to evaluate. If someone finds WP:THREE sources that meet WP:IS and WP:RS and have WP:SIGCOV which requires direct and indepth coverage of the subject, ping me. Please don't list a dozen sources, the three best sources will do to demonstrate notability. // Timothy :: talk 06:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Army's Official Website's own press release: https://ispr.gov.pk/press-release-detail?id=6679

https://www.dawn.com/news/1792427 WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:20, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2421712/adil-raja-arrested-in-london-sabir-moeed-booked-on-sedition-charges

https://www.nation.com.pk/13-Nov-2023/civil-society-protest-outside-quetta-press-club-against-adil-raja

https://arynews.tv/ex-army-officers-convicted-over-espionage/

https://www.geo.tv/latest/520383-pak-army-sentences-2-retired-officers-for-inciting-sedition WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I listed half a dozen. These are from the most official news sources in Pakistan, including the Pakistan Army's own press release site. WarriorYt43 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A whole lot of not much it seems, basically rehashing the same press release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me a favor and search up Adil Raja on Google, and go to the news section. You'll see dozens of articles. Thank you WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TimothyBlue, your view of the proposed sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable youtuber [24], arrested for reporting. Most "evidence" seems to be faked, does not appear notable outside of having been arrested with a host of others. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable YouTuber?? His channel was one of the fastest growing channels amongst the journalist community in Pakistan. He gained 650K subscribers after half a year of starting his channel. Then it was obviously banned because of mass reports. Now YouTube doesn't even reply to tweets related to his issue. Why is that? Why are they trying to silence him? I really hope Wikipedia doesn't delete this and be an addition to this censorship WarriorYt43 (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wikipedia non-notability, due to a lack of sources. I have no idea why YouTube is trying to silence him, perhaps ask them. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They silenced him because he tells the truth. The Pakistani Establishment is trying to silence him. WarriorYt43 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that has no bearing on the discussion here. Thank you Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not clearly established. Fails independent verifiability too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Currently, nothing notable regarding the individual except his conviction on espionage charges, and some other minor run-ins with law enforcement. Needs more coverage in the press to meet WP:GNG and even, WP:JOURNALIST. Article has potential to be recreated as I believe it is WP:TOOSOON. Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 22:05, 6 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Technical Resources[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP,WP:SIRS. Refs are business news, 404's, press-release. scope_creep^Talk 15:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the $5÷1deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep this close to $1 billion Corporation with tens of thousands of employees. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: Can you point me to the place in the Wikipedia notability polcies where it says that the size or value of a company makes them notable, please. scope_creep^Talk 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would be surprised if a company that size has never had any controversy. I googled "Volt Information Sciences controversy" and got many results. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't have anything, actually. What you did is based on a raw search url which is never a good way of doing it and is illegal as a reference. Controversies don't make for notabilty either. If you WP:THREE references, post them up so we can have a look at them. scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have just added History and Controversies to the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Nomination Withdrawn scope_creep^Talk 16:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's beachwear fashion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting to delete or merge to swimsuit. The premise of the article is out of scope for an encyclopedia and both potentially too broad and too specific ie. lacking in a clear definition. The writing is not encyclopedic but this is because of the fundamental nature of the article is unlikely to be clearly focused. Women can wear anything to the beach, any beachwear can be worn anywhere else (and sunglasses, sandals, hats can be worn other than by just women) and it is not restricted to a particular item of clothing which might narrow it down. Darrelljon (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Darrelljon (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For something that happened first in the 19th Century, we have too many photos of recent women in bikinis. There's some sort of OR going on here. This can be covered under the swimwear article. If you want to create an article on 19th Century beach wear, that could be something different. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much entirely OR, and honestly reads like thinly disguised fetish content. CoconutOctopus talk 19:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to swimsuit. The article has no clear scope. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:47, 6 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. Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hicham Nostik[edit]

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

non-notable, virtually every source in the article are self-published NAADAAN (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, Morocco, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : PROMO. Only semi-independent coverage is the MEMRI linked used, and that's barely acceptable. No sourcing found at all, outside of spotify, youtube and the usual suspect list of download/streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b. First of all, regardless of the notability of the topic, it was written in good faith without any conflict of interest. Second, I've checked the sources in the English article, and while about 8-9 of them are not independent (or dead), and were used only to reference the subject's opinions, the rest are reviews of his books or interviews with the author. Do these not count as "independent"? In any case, if you search on Google only in English, for sure you won't find many independent sources about this topic. Apart from Memri, there's also the paper "Atheism in and out the Moroccan context" cited in the article, and this lecture abstract. Also mentioned in this paper and this article, and this book about atheism. In French, there are many articles which review his books and or include his biography, such as this article about atheism in Morocco, this review of his third book, a review of his second book, his interview with Hamed Abdel Samad translated to French, and this article about best selling books in Morocco (and similar ones such as 1). In German, this interview. In Arabic (Standard and Darija), there are just countless articles by independent newspapers with reviews, interviews, etc. Ideophagous (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two French book reviews look fine, the third isn't much help. Interviews don't help notability but you can use them to colour the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His first book has its own article by the way. Ideophagous (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article, but I believe the topic is definitely notable. Nothing in the the guidelines says that the notability has to be proven through English sources only. I've added several sources in my response to Oaktree above. FYI, there was already a discussion on the notability of this topic on frwiki, and the verdict was to keep it. The French version of the article definitely has better sources though. Ideophagous (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, even though some of these are passing mentions I'm not going to create an entire fuss about this. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article I hope that you eventually get to that and any other articles you get to make to avoid such an AfD. :-) NAADAAN (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NAADAAN Apart from adding more reliable sources, what do you suggest to improve the article? Ideophagous (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is decent, although though I suggest it fits the WP:MOS better. The grievance here isn't really about how the article is written, moreover the faulty sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep passes AUTHOR with a few book reviews, but boy does this need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b feel free to suggest improvements. Ideophagous (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As this is due to low participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Bludger[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, particularly a lack of WP:SIGCOV. J2m5 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Australia. J2m5 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning keep It would be worth looking into references from the 2007 Australian election era - from memory, The Australian newspaper went on a (rather strange) crusade against this and other websites covering opinion polls after they critiqued how the newspaper was interpreting polls. This might amount to sufficient coverage. As an Australian political nerd, this website is very well known among other Australian political nerds. I suspect that it's notable. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: If you have found WP:SIGCOV, you need to link it here, and then that will be that. Otherwise, in my view there are no grounds to keep the article. J2m5 (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be difficult to do not because it's not notable but because it's going to be difficult to search, considering my BEFORE search just brought up pages and pages of articles from this news source, and when not it's because another news source quotes it. SportingFlyer T·C 11:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Probably keep~~ agree with Nick-D, this is a prominent website for Australian poll-watchers and it's hard to imagine there won't be any sources covering it in some capacity – the difficulty is extracting coverage of the website itself from the gazillion times it has been mentioned in passing to verify some figure or analysis. – Teratix ₵ 13:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because poll watchers like the website doesn't grant it notability... those forms of coverage (citation) are apparently cited below by Spinifex&Sand as reasons to keep the article. So it's still unclear to me what the grounds to keep the article are. I also visit Poll Bludger at least three times a week. J2m5 (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I conducted a search re J2m5's request for WP:SIGCOV. Without finding a specific article about Poll Bludger, there were many reputable sources that included references to it. Bearing in mind WP:N Basic Criteria, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”, I think there is enough to achieve notability. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" applied to when such articles treated the subject as one of many elements of focus in the article. The mentions of Poll Bludger in reputable sources are citations of Poll Bludger. By this logic many journalists would have Wikipedia articles, when this is not the case. We cannot feasibly close this AfD without sources being presented which actually focus on Poll Bludger in at least partial depth without it being simply cited as a source.J2m5 (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of little cites such as [25]. Worst case scenario we move it to the person who runs the blog. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am currently giving zero weight to the two SOURCESMUSTEXIST arguments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've come up short on a source search. The best I can find are a master's thesis (not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP) that gives a few passing mentions, less-than-significant coverage in "Newspaper Blogs: The Genuine Article or Poor Counterfeits?", and passing mention in "The role of blogging in public deliberation and democracy". But none of these contribute towards SIGCOV, and I'm beginning to doubt that this blog itself has been covered significantly by multiple independent RS. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a deeper look into what sources are available. In particular, I was able to track down the spate of Rudd-era coverage Nick-D mentioned.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ Norington, Brad (4 August 2007). "Blog's breakfast". The Australian. p. 26.
^ Hills, Rachel (28 October 2007). "Psephological blogger rhythms". The Age. p. 12.
^ Price, Jenna (23 November 2007). "Playing possum with polls and politics". The Canberra Times. p. 9.
^ Shanahan, Dennis (21 February 2008). "Pundits' margin of hypocrisy on polls". The Australian. p. 2.
^ Kerr, Christian (15 June 2009). "Our blogs too analytical, intolerant". The Australian. p. 32.

To my judgement none of the sources give enough coverage to Poll Bludger in particular to meet GNG.

However, they do appear to give enough coverage to justify reviving an article on political blogs in Australia: this article briefly existed in 2006, was redirected to political blog on the understanding its content would be retained there but then the target was itself merged to Blog#Political impact in 2015, which only contains US-related content. The latter decision to merge was done unilaterally and probably seemed innocuous at the time. In hindsight that seems to have been a poor call and someone should probably look into reviving political blog as a full-fledged article as well.

Anyway, my view is now un-redirect political blogs in Australia and merge this article there. – Teratix ₵ 11:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does anyone else agree with Teratix's proposal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 16:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hern[edit]

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

This article was created by a single purpose account and remained largely unsourced for the majority of its life. I do not think he is notable in any way and feel this article is similar to Joy Henderson which I also AFD'd. These are "community organizer" type people who just insert themselves into different causes. I think this is a pretty clearly non-notable individual. None of the articles I can find on him, which are far and few between, show enough for WP:GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local activist means pretty much noting for notability without coverage. This is about all I could find that wasn't from the same Georgia Straight newspaper [26] and it's still not enough. Local notability perhaps, nothing for wikipedia though. Oaktree b (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my open question from 2022 on the talk page. Dearth of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 02:40, 6 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 14:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Lu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie Lu, recreated just four months later by another student in the same instructor's class. Notability not established with substantive independent sources: all sources are related to the subject or lack biographical depth. Most coverage found online stems from her receipt design but seems to fall under WP:BIO1E. Reywas92^Talk 14:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Washington. Reywas92^Talk 14:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Netflix data analyst isn't notable. She was on a game show a decade ago [27], but it's simply coverage of a "local person on a big tv show, watch here" article. Still not much has changed since the last AfD, and whatever notability she had appears to have decreased since then, with even less sourcing found this time and not much since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that little has changed since the last AfD. The article is different enough to avoid G4 but does not present any new evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 5 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Motor Speedway race results[edit]

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

Do we need another list of winners when many of these articles about races taking place there have their own list or is part of it, thus making this completely unnecessary. Many others are not necessary to the most ardent fans such as feeder series. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Motorsport, United States of America, and Indiana. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary and redundant list of results of races at one track across many different motorsport series. Much of the information is already present in series-specific lists such as List of Indianapolis 500 winners and Brickyard_400#Past_winners. Combining this information in a massive list violates WP:NOTDB. Carson Wentz (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while there are problems, this article also includes important history and context about the very early years of the Speedway. RegalZ8790 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But Reorganize: The article is important and informative, however, there is way too much redundancy. The original intent was to summarize results of races at IMS that did not have individual articles. However, that information was added later, and along with other (some non-professional events) it became bloated and too large. Recommend KEEP, but remove all sections that already have an individual article (Indianapolis 500, Brickyard 400, IROC at Indy, Freedom 100, etc., etc.) Those events can be handled with a simple Wikilink to that article. Also, trim the article by moving some sections to more appropriate existing articles (for instance, the SVRA results can be moved to the Indy Legends Charity Pro–Am race...the event with which it is/was associated) ...(all the motorcycle results can go to Indianapolis motorcycle Grand Prix)...brining the article back to its original intent. Doctorindy↔Talk 15:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per doctorindy •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
doctorindy All in honesty, I was reluctant to list this in as I had thought the same with the early races though they are also listed in the AAA Championship seasons. I cannot see how the listing of support races (of post-2001) are this necessary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the changes suggested by Doctorindy. Indyguy (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a severe trim, per Doctorindy. Certainly things like lists of the notable early races should stay, but individual vintage races (by which I mean modern races for old vehicles) certainly not. A7V2 (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust (KMFDM song)[edit]

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

Can't see anything in a BEFORE. Not sure how a single song without any reviews is notable Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are 0 reviews or even information on this single out there. It’s not even on iTunes. KMFDM singles like this tend to be really obscure. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 15:38, 8 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 MusicBrainz. ✗plicit 06:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MusicBrainz Picard[edit]

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

Nominated as this had been deprodded, which got reverted who claimed there are a number of sources available; take this to AFD if you think it should be deleted. I then redirected this to Musicbrainz as its notability is rather thin, again reverted because it seems notable.

This is my rationale to nominate but reluctantly: apps and softwares of database websites are not notable on their own. It may seem "notable" to that editor but half of the 7 sources are hardly reliable sources. Of the sources, one is a talk by the creator of the website, so this is of a promotional nature. The one by PCWorld is a review and the one by CNET is a guide on using the app. Also, as with further reading, they are all guides on how to use the app. Thus this makes WP:RS rather questionable. Nothing in that article asserts why should it be notable here.

Alternatively, I suggest redirect this to MusicBrainz as a WP:ATD but I feel its notability is also pretty questionable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and Software. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PC World is fine, kind of slim. Popular Science is also a slim article. I'd consider those 1.5 sources together, not really meeting notability. The rest is primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for coverage, Gsearch is all primary sourcing to their own website. Gnews is various repositories or blog type sites that feature software. I don't see enough for notability. I'd also have PROD this when reviewing it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think the MusicBrainz Picard article should be merged with the MusicBrainz article. Maybe create a separate MusicBrainz Picard subheading in the Client Software heading. Between the two articles, there should be enough reliable sources to establish notability.

GranCavallo (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as an ATD per GranCavallo; I also concur with Oaktree's analysis of the search results. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancashire Primary Care Trust[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Just 2 gnews hits. Article seems refbombed for last statement with 8 sources. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and England. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 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. Both sides raise valid arguments, but some of those on the minority Delete side seem like issues that can be fixed editorially, without the need to blow it up and start afresh. Notability of the concept, rather than its name, seems adequately supported by those on the Keep side. Discussion about renaming can proceed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cargo cult programming[edit]

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

This appears to be a dictionary definition, padded out with content on other subjects. The only source cited actually discussing the article topic is a hacker dictionary. The 'origin' section at minimum borders on WP:OR, and is mostly off-topic, while the 'Cargo cult software engineering' section starts with an explicit statement to the effect that it is off-topic. An online search for the article topic itself fails to locate the significant coverage in WP:RS necessary to establish notability: instead, we find a few blog entries and similar, along with instances of the phrase being used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well-known concept in software engineering. The Hacker's Dictionary is a reliable source for computing-related subjects, as is the book by Steve McConnell that is cited. Ample other sources are available, for example [28], [29], [30], [31], [32]. It has received scholarly study as well: [33], [34], [35]. Easily meets WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you cite is completely and utterly wrong about the actual 'cargo cults' this supposed ritualised programming practice is being compared to (I could go into great detail, but just as a teaser, I'll note that documented 'cults' pre-date the aeroplane, never mind WW2, and that in as much as 'cargo' ever played a part, it was a relatively small part of what were actually complex indigenous political/religious reactions to the rapid social change and growing economic/political inequalities of colonialism. The anthropological literature on this phenomenon is extensive, and precisely none of it supports this reductionist 'stupid primitives' narrative). If that is a 'reliable source', what would an unreliable one look like? Same for the second. And so on. Most of the sources you link do little more than assert that 'cargo cult programming exists', and those that do define it through analogy based on a wrong-headed and frankly offensive counterfactual popular-culture trivialisation of movements and events documented within anthropology. A dictionary definition at best, repeated ad nauseum. If programmers think that using the term 'cargo cult' and then telling a fairy tale constitutes an actual definition of anything, that's their choice. I see no reason for Wikipedia to present their ritual incantations as based on fact... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jfire's sources. Additionally, the article is (or at least should be?) about a concept, not the specific words "cargo cult programming" and "cargo cult software engineering", so I find the notion that "cargo-cult software engineering" is off-topic incorrect. It's clearly the same topic. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: nom seems to have an agenda to WP:RGW. And while I feel for their position on the misappropriation of the term "cargo cult" to describe this concept in computer science / software engineering, this is the WP:COMMONNAME of this concept, and "Ritualistic incorporation of commonly used patterns that serve no purpose in programming" would not be a title useful to readers. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the suggestion that the scope of WP:RGW should include noting that an article has been disseminating factually-incorrect content based on sources that rely on pop-cult just-so stories to perpetuate an offensive stereotype for over twenty years somewhat disheartening. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Origin section as it stood was rewritten precisely to address the cultural misapprehensions that Andy is so keen to have addressed. It's quite the irony to insist that people refer to research that has refined the understanding of CCs, then declare it original research and off-topic when it is represented in the article! 2601:642:4600:BE10:7463:209D:F5A6:DF1F (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With hindsight my initial approach, aimed at rectifying the appalling misrepresentations of 'cargo cults' as it stood in the article, might not have been the most appropriate. If I'd taken more note of the paucity and inadequacy of sources being cited, rather than the utterly wrong-headed 'stupid brown people' narrative I saw there, I'd probably have nominated the article for deletion sooner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, regardless of political arguments within the academic field of cultural anthropology were taking place in the 1990s-2000s (?), this does seem like a term used by computer programmers, and the sources support this. I do not really see what's wrong with the article. jp×g 🗯️ 02:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology has been discussing and debating 'cargo cults' (a term going out of favour) since the 1950's, if not earlier. The debate is ongoing. As for 'terms', they generally belong in dictionaries, unless subject to considerably more reliably-sourced analysis. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage of subject matter in multiple reliable sources. Not sources 'using' the term, but sources 'discussing' it in depth. All I'm seeing are sources which either take it as read everyone knows what they are referring to, or defining it through hand-waving analogy with popular-culture pseudoanthropology. The sources seem to be reliably vague, reliably useless, and/or reliably wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cargo cult since the article does appear to have the problems previously raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big ball of mud. In this case there is the added wrinkle that "cargo cult" is a broadly applied metaphor and its metaphorical usage in various contexts is offered to support the notability of the specific term in the Jargon File, which was based on one student's usage at the University of Iowa in the early 1990s. The cargo cult article should eventually have a short section on the term's metaphorical use outside and in Melanesia that can serve as a more specific redirect target. 2601:642:4600:BE10:7463:209D:F5A6:DF1F (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect proposed would be improper, since the cargo cult article doesn't discuss cargo cult programming, and nor should it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can be noted in passing within a section on the metaphor, cited to Lindstrom and Jarvis. 2601:642:4600:BE10:B80A:F3BD:A39F:7FA5 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do either Lindstrom or Jarvis discuss 'cargo cult programming'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis describes it as an example of the metaphor, and Lindstrom mentions "cargo cult computer code" for the same purpose. 2601:642:4600:BE10:B80A:F3BD:A39F:7FA5 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very useful and well known concept in the field of programming. פרה (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus against deletion, but it would be useful to get more views about a possible merge or redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per analogy with the discussion at TalL:Cargo cult science. The cargo cult part is misused and the whole article is working as a definition. This is not the Wiktionary.--ReyHahn (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not merely a dictionary definition, but it is a term for a specific anti-pattern that is found in computer programming. Coverage of this as an anti-pattern (rather than as a mere term) can be found on Page 381 of this book, on page 38 of this book, in this paper, and in others. There are even some full-length reflections by experts in the field about this sort of anti-pattern. The application of the "cargo cult" metaphor to programming dates back to at least 1983, and it remains a fairly standard pitfall in the programming world; I'm even able to find containerization-related cargo cult programming papers being published. And the security implications of cargo cult programming is described both in this paper and this one. This isn't the wiktionary, but I do think that this sort of thing goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. That the metaphor might be a misnomer, as the nominator suggests, is totally irrelevant to notability of the anti-pattern itself. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my opinion, it's an important concept. Richard Feynman coined the term "Cargo Cult Science" and this is the software engineering equivalent. Feynman's original use is here:

https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

This article gives some modern examples of the problem:

https://medium.com/the-engineering-manager-guide/cargo-cult-programming-is-killing-the-sri-lankan-software-industry-e5e9fc9a3ff9

Here are more examples with the lessons to learn:

https://blog.ndepend.com/cargo-cult-programming/ Ainsinga (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are problems with the current article, but it should be possible to write a better one. This is a commonly-addressed topic in computing courses and textbooks. The standard Google and database searches may not turn up material buried in lectures, books, conferences, and so on. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:52, 6 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archelaus II of Macedon[edit]

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

There does not seem to be any modern evidence that Archelaus II existed. The only reference is to a work by Sir Walter Raleigh!! The article's facts and dates clash or are inconsistent with articles that rely on more reliable sources. Chewings72 (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A sixteen-year hoax. Nice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not mentioned at List of kings of Macedonia, which does seems to indicate this is likely a hoax. Curbon7 (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure which Wiki policy this article exactly violates, but there never was an Archelaus II. This name does not appear on any list of Macedonian kings from any modern scholarly source (see below). The article is the result of a misunderstanding created by the conflicting extant sources about this period in Macedonian history (400/399–369 BC).

To clarify, the succession order given by modern sources is generally Perdiccas II -> Archelaus (I) -> Orestes -> Aeropus II -> Amyntas II -> Pausanias -> Amyntas III. Eusebius and Synkellos, writing in Late antiquity/early medieval period, record Orestes’ successor as "Archelaus" (our Archelaus II). However, Diodorus, as well as a few other sources, call Orestes' successor "Aeropos" (March pp. 275-276). What’s likely going on here is that Aeropos adopted the name "Archelaus" when he became king (March p. 280). Alternatively, the "Archelaus" could be a mistake in the Eusebian and Synkellan sources (King p.65, Hammond 1979 p.168). In either case, there is no Archelaus II.

This is all pretty complicated, so anyone interested in this niche subject should read Duane A. March's journal article The Kings of Makedon: 399-369 B.C.

Kings of Macedonia
Source	Archelaus II
Eder, Walter; Renger, Johannes, eds. (2006). Chronologies of the Ancient World: Names, Dates, and Dynasties. Boston: Brill. pp. 188–190.	X
Morby, John (1989). Dynasties of the World: A Chronological and Genealogical Handbook. Oxford University Press. pp. 29–30.	X
Roisman, Joseph (2010)."Classical Macedonia to Perdiccas III". In Roisman, Joseph; Worthington, Ian (eds.). A Companion to Ancient Macedonia. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 158.	X
Errington, R. Malcolm (1990). A History of Macedonia. University of California Press. pp. 251–253.	X
Hammond, N.G.L. (1979). A History of Macedonia Volume II: 550-336 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 167–169.	X
Strootman, Rolf (2014). Courts and Elites in the Hellenistic Empires: The Near East After the Achaemenids, c. 330 to 30 BCE Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. xiv–xv.	X
Heckel, Waldemar (2020). Lexicon of Argead Makedonia. Berlin: Frank & Timme. p. 25.	X
King, Carol J. (2018). Ancient Macedonia. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. xvi–xviii. ISBN 978-0-415-82727-0.	X

A big thank you to user:Chewings72 for bringing this to AFD. I’ve been meaning to take care of it since I first started editing Wikipedia! BusterTheMighty (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeropus II of Macedon and explain the confusion there. The Italian Wiki cites Eusebius. Moreover, if Aeropos adopted the name "Archelaus" when he became king, then there is an Archelaus II, he's just not a different person from Aeropus II. Srnec (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and explain at Aeropus II, as Srnec suggests. That seems like a reasonable way of dealing with confusion that might have arisen from ancient sources or modern ones. P Aculeius (talk) 12:54, 6 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 Google Stadia#Games. ✗plicit 11:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worm Game[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSUSTAINED, merge with Google Stadia? IgelRM (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 10:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Google Stadia#Games. I would agree that SUSTAINED is not passed here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested is fine. Stadia is largely an historical curiosity at this point, no need to have articles broken-out for various bits of trivia that are associated with it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 5 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!} 08:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kekma Forum[edit]

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

No coverage from reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. NotAGenious (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. NotAGenious (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable coverage, maybe redirect to Shock site. It's not a very notable meme, either. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy delete per A7, as it says that the website holds a “significant importance to meme culture”, but never explains how so. The Know Your Meme link might count, but there are far more notable memes without Wikipedia pages. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources provided do not justify this having its own article. This page was also previously speedy deleted under a previous title (KEKMA FORUM in all caps). Deauthorized. ^(talk) 03:16, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to speedy under G5 and A7. 67.174.19.131 (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football in Nepal. ✗plicit 11:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ncell Women's National Football Championship[edit]

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

Could not find any source to indicate notability. Seems like the sponsor name is attached to national football competition. nirmal (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in Nepal as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albany and West Lodge Bassets[edit]

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

Not recognised by any kennel club, search results mention a hunting lodge of this name but no reliable sources talk about this as it's own breed. Fails notability guidelines of animal breeds requiring recognition from a major registry and fails general notability. Article may have just been created as an advertisement for breeder. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under G11; blatant advertising, filled with lines such as "The clamour of the Albany and West Lodge Bassets in full cry has no equal in hunting!" and a segment where the article discloses frozen semen is available for purchase. CoconutOctopus talk 07:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 11:22, 5 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!} 08:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xianbei-Wa War (185)[edit]

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

This article about a purported war in 185 AD between the Inner Asian steppe nomads the Xianbei and the Wa of present-day Japan, is as fanciful as it appears. It lists three sources, which are, astonishingly enough, genuine, but none of them support the outlandish claim that the steppe nomads crossed the sea of Japan and fought the inhabitants there, nor any events of the year 185. The first source, "SGZ", apparently refers to Sanguo Zhi, and the cited passage talks about the reach of the Xianbei leader Tanshihuai - no mention of Wa of Japan. The second source, available online here, talks about Xiongnu burial rites and nothing about the Xianbei, let alone the Japanese. The last source notes that the Xianbei were defeated west of the Liao River in 177, a far cry from the grandiose claim that they forced the submission of the Wa and made them pay tribute. I must conclude this article is a hoax, and recommend that other articles by the same creator be scrutinized as well. _dk (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, China, Japan, and Mongolia. _dk (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A11. I think we need to start cracking down on editors who simply invent battles/campaigns/wars etc. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: It looks like hoax to me, per A11. CSMention269 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems purely made-up, should be deleted. Noorullah (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this is clearly bogus and agree that other contributions by this editor are likely deserving of additional attention. DCsansei (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No results on Google or Scholar. Maybe one should take a closer look at the other user's articles too. Killarnee (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the same editor wrote Siege of Multan (1398), which has references that look likely to be spurious, if anyone has a moment to double-check this. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Travel System[edit]

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

This definitely exists, but is it notable? Been tagged since 2010, with discussions on the talk page since 2008. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Business, Software, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for a reservation/booking software used by the military. Coverage is simply where to find the site, on other military websites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't cleanup, just needs a typical copyedit. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Didn't take long to find secondary sources:[36], [37], [38]. PianoDan (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources provide SIGCOV of this system, and are more about potential replacements, which seem to have been canceled. Natg 19 (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree those three sources are about (not) replacing it, but there's more sources... Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many sources exist easily passing WP:GNG. e.g. [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], (primary) [44], (replacement) [45] (replacement, primary) [46], (replacement) [47] system details here [48]. Anything more than a quick search would find better ones. Widefox; talk 14:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely to be fixed. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here another source from 17 years ago in the Washington Post. It may be notably bad, but it's notable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Notability passed per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dessi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Quoted by a bunch of publications as the founder of some social media company, but none of the articles are about him, they're about whatever he's being asked to comment on. The most WP:SIGCOV in a source is the Sports Illustrated source, but it's WP:1E. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is this promotional dreck, this brief mention in NYT isn't enough for GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Meets WP:GNG as he has received in-depth coverage for starting a marathon in two independent publications, namely Sports Illustrated ([49]) and Baltimore Fishbowl ([50]). He has also received in-depth coverage for founding the Westchester Digital Summit and the Baltimore Digital Summit in a notable magazine, namely Westchester Magazine ([51]). He is also regularly covered and quoted in media within a niche that Wikipedia needs articles on. Dabreis (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rewritten shouldn't be deletion, I guess from the article the subject is notable at least passed WP:ANYBIO. It needs rewriting to meet Notability tone and encyclopaediac standard. Otuọcha (talk) 08:32, 8 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Richard[edit]

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

Can't see any credible claim to notabitilty here. TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if someone can write and source something better. There are potentially plausible notability claims here, but they aren't adequately supported by reliable sourcing — but notability doesn't hinge on what the article says, it hinges on how well the article can or can't reference the things it says to WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about the things it says. But given how heavily Quebec-based his career was, it's highly likely that if he has adequate reliable source coverage to pass GNG, most of it would be in French newspapers that I don't have adequate access to in order to be the fixer. But we also don't keep poorly sourced articles just because it's possible that better sourcing might exist somewhere than we've actually been able to find — we can only consider sources that are actually in evidence, so somebody who wanted to claim that he got over GNG on French-language coverage would actually have to find and show his French-language coverage, and we can't just keep the article on a presumption that he might have more in French than we've found in English. So, again, no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, and I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can improve the article before this discussion even closes, but this as currently written and sourced isn't good enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I was a bit quick to publish this at first (I usually continue working/improving on an article over time) but was still surprised at it being flagged within seconds. At the moment, I've added sufficient citations/sources, and even though it is still a work in progress, I believe it will help you reconsider. Saucoin (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added four references from newspaper articles that discuss Richard's qualifications: "U of O series to end with song recital" (Ottawa Journal, April 1972), "Richard ensemble highest in integrity" (The Leader-Post, February 1978), "Club to present The Magic Flute" (The Leader-Post, January 1974), and "Spanish guitarist, baritone to wrap up festival season" (The Chilliwack Progress, April 1977). Toughpigs (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Saucoin (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced either way, but just want to point out that the obvious WP:ATD would be a slight merge and redirect to Denise Massé. —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the text that followed the link to his wife (pianist Denise Massé). I agree it did not jive well (i.e. conflation). Saucoin (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think recentism might be an issue here. References above are good enough. Here's another one from 1955. Also I see that User:Saucoin has added several sources to the article since the AFD started. Excellent work, but they should comment here instead of removing the AFD notice. Nfitz (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I was a bit quick to publish this at first (I usually continue working/improving on an article over time) but was still surprised at it being flagged within seconds. At the moment, I've added sufficient citations/sources, and it is still a work in progress. Saucoin (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your interest. Can you please explain to me why you relisted the article. Note that current editor comments were addressed and the article has been substantially revamped with cited information and sources Saucoin (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please consider withdrawing your nomination for withdrawal. The article has now significantly improved, including citations and sources, to allay your concerns. Saucoin (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saucoin: It's okay, you just need to be patient. People will see that the article has improved. It doesn't help to keep posting messages on this page, and it might hurt your cause. Toughpigs (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources found during the course of the AfD, I want to highlight that the one linked by Nfitz strongly suggests that additional coverage exists - it mentions "national and international acclaim", which I might not trust on its own, but also a debut at Carnegie Hall in NY that was well received by critics, with quotations. Unless I've missed something above, we haven't found any of the critical response to that performance yet, but it clearly exists somewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wacana Bhakti Seminary[edit]

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

The seminary existed but the seminary didn't pass the notability test per WP:NORG. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Indonesia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nothing notable here. Rangasyd (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How was the notability test done? A Google search in English and the local language? Cardofk (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in Indonesian Wikipedia we can found a large article. Maybe it's worth working on this original. --Well I dont (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. The large article on the"id" Wikipedia is unsourced again confirming that it is non-table. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 15:25, 7 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 Wayne State University#Media. ^Complex/_Rational 16:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne State Magazine[edit]

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

This article is about the alumni magazine for Wayne State University. We generally don't find alumni magazines notable for standalone articles (the category has only 16 non-redirect entries, several others of which are at AfD right now), and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this one. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing except non-independent press releases like [52]. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wayne State University § Media as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Michigan. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to proposed target. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wayne State University#Media per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:44, 6 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 Washington State University#Media. ✗plicit 11:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Magazine[edit]

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

This article is about the alumni magazine for Washington State University. We generally don't find alumni magazines notable for standalone articles (the category has only 16 non-redirect entries), and there doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about this one (CASE gives out lots of awards).

A WP:BEFORE search turned up a surprising amount — [53] counts as one notability-qualifying source, and the previous alumni magazine has a borderline source of its own.

However, two factors push me toward merging and redirecting to Washington State University. First, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, it seems questionable to have a separate article on this when there's just not that much to say on it and it could be covered at the university's article. Second, it was created by a paid editor, so retaining it would be WP:BOGOF. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Washington State University § Media as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Washington. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm what's been said, I pulled up the Circle of Excellence awards for a single year, and there are about 300 of them. These are not notably scarce. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington State University#Media per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all Okoslavia (talk) 08:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Hafouzlik[edit]

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

No indication of notability, sourced only to open wikis. Draftification was contested. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Islam, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7. It’s just some hobby universe on Fandom that has five followers. Probably made up by the article creator. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original characters. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not an original character, it is a meme ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete sry but Wikipedia is not the place for your personal memes and fandom is not a reliable source Killarnee (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, i only made this article as a joke hoping for a miracle that it would be accepted so yeah, i dont mind its deletio’. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Azeem Barkhiya[edit]

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

No information available in the third party sources, the 2 references given are written by Shamsuddin Azeemi, his disciple in sufism. I searched in Urdu, Hindi also but it seems to be non-notable religious figure. — Quadrimobile(T · C 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Pakistan, and India. Quadrimobile(T · C 21:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not have third party sources to meet GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've looked through some old revisions, and there are a good number of links in them that might be worth evaluating for reliability/independence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear some opinions from more experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:NBASIC. I've found two reliable English language sources and one Urdu language source, which I've added to the article. The subject has a substantial article on the Urdu Wikipedia [54]. The subject also seems to also get regular coverage in the Urdu Digest, but it needs a native speaker to review this. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evaluation having taken place... final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Kingdom[edit]

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

No significant coverage of subject; no charted releases. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Jamaica. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She meets the 11 and 12 criteria for [[WP:MUSICBIO]] and is currently signed to Republic records Heatrave (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A musical artist does not need to chart or attain Gold (or higher) certification to pass notability, those are just some of the requirements needed to meet when the subject has passed WP:GNG and preferably WP:SIGCOV. The two sources from NME and THE FADER cited on this articles are in depth, and the individual has been a subject of the news in the past few weeks, see this, this, and this about her beef with Stefflon Don. dxneo (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, although the article could be re-written to be less promotional. --GnocchiFan (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of the sourcing would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. also some coverage of her musical work in Billboard [55], not extensive, but just enough. Also this in Teen Vogue, [56]. Other sources in the article are fine... Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This close has no prejudice against renaming/rescoping the article, but there's insufficient consensus and it can be discussed outside of AFD. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-born Japanese[edit]

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

Delete A page with a myriad of problems. I cannot find any information if the term "Foreign-born Japanese" is used as a distinctive category on its own. Seems like a badly written list with most content being taken from Japanese nationality law Tooncool64 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. The term is Diaspora. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. The article on Japanese diaspora is about the group of ethnic Japanese people who are in Japan (a large majority of whom are not citizens of Japan, and have never lived there), whereas this article is about the group of Japanese citizens who were not born in Japan (a large majority of whom live in Japan). Dekimasuよ! 03:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on what's been said here so far. Forgive me if this is a bit WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'm not sure what the underlying problem is here. We have, for example, List of naturalized American citizens, List of naturalized Filipino citizens, and a massive Category:People with acquired citizenship. This is a similar case, listing Japanese citizens who are not "ethnic Japanese" although the government of Japan does not acknowledge that such a category of people exists. Perhaps this just needs to be moved to List of naturalized Japanese citizens, since that's also a more accurate explanation of the current article's scope? ~~(The current article does not, for example, appear to consider children of two Japanese parents but born outside of Japan to be "foreign-born Japanese".)~~ Dekimasuよ! 05:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: would be better than just leaving the article as it stands. There are lists of people, surely not remotely complete, preceded by some totally unsourced waffle, including statements such as "Many who naturalize as Japanese also adopt a Japanese name, since names must be chosen from a list of approved kanji." which are demonstrably false (members of my family, for example). This could probably be sourced to some old book, as this may at some time have been true, but this is not a good way to make articles which anyone could consider "reliable". (All words I use with their natural English meaning not any WP:LAWYERCRAP.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the unsourced waffle; again, I think that a move to List of naturalized Japanese citizens is clear in scope and is not indiscriminate. Then the list would simply require expansion (probably from Category:Naturalized citizens of Japan as a start). Dekimasuよ! 07:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the correct term would be Diaspora. Category:Japanese diaspora by country indicates there is no way this could list all the Japanese born in other countries. The opposite topic with Category:Naturalized citizens of Japan. Not even if it just included celebrities or the like. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the scope intended by this article. This article is explicitly about citizens of Japan, which is a separate topic from Japanese diaspora. In effect, since the Japanese government does not acknowledge the existence of ethnicity (and the series of articles on foreign groups in Japan also explicitly limits the scope of those articles to citizens of foreign countries, cf. Brazilians in Japan, Chinese people in Japan, Americans in Japan), deletion of this article would leave us with few places to discuss the subjects of this article as a group. If that is fine with everyone, I suppose the category will have to suffice. Dekimasuよ! 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss Dekimasu's extensive edits, and to see whether the initial issues have been resolved or can be with a rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep move to List of naturalized Japanese citizens pper Dekimasu. I'm not using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a rationale, but Wikipedia does have lists of naturalized citizens and this could aid readers per WP:CLN as a nav list. // Timothy :: talk 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion in line with the prior relisting comment would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, per Dekimasu. Sorry previous closers, but I agree with everything Dekimasu has said here and see nothing further to add. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investigations since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état[edit]

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

No sources since 2009, no real content, not notable separate from the main 2000 Fijian coup d'état article. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am not convinced there is that much worth salvaging from a previous version of the entry, mentioned in the talk page, from before the article's purging. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there will be sources for some of it, much of it falls into the category of rumours and allegations. As all outstanding investigations were discontinued by the 2006 coup, there's no definite verdicts to support an article.

The key prosecutions - of Speight and his supporters, and the military mutineers - are mentioned in the main article. IdiotSavant (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fiji-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 5 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 University of Oregon media. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Quarterly[edit]

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

This article is about the University of Oregon's alumni magazine. From that perspective, the initial outlook isn't too promising, as we don't generally find alumni magazines notable for stand-alone articles (the category has only 16 non-redirect entries). Looked at as an overall media organization, it does seem to have a plausible claim of significance — its designer states that it's the oldest and most widely circulated publication in the state.

That said, I was unable to find any notability-qualifying source during a WP:BEFORE search, which included its former Old Oregon name. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Oregon media § Oregon Quarterly as nominator. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Education, and Oregon. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nominator. The claim of being the oldest and most widely circulated periodical is definitely wrong. The Oregonian is dramatically older and more widely circulated. Maybe they meant just magazines? Either way this could just be a section in university article. The publication doesn't even have a standalone website, it's a subdomain of uoregon.edu. Steven Walling • talk 04:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Oregonian you've linked to is the daily newspaper in Portland. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a daily newspaper is also a type of periodical. Steven Walling • talk 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect seems appropriate. Carrite (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all above. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:18, 8 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. No consensus for deletion, and nom appears to have reconsidered; it looks like the rest, including a possible merge, can be sorted out through normal editing. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innova Solutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 02:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Keep notable company. If this page cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Volt Technical Resources. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how you !voted keep on it, when the sources and coverage are so chronically bad. Why is that, I wonder? scope_creep^Talk 17:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I gave it some thought. Perhaps subsidiary Volt Information Sciences could be merged into conglomerate Innova Solutions. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Volt Information Sciences: Since the subsidiary of Volt Information Sciences is not qualified to pass WP:GNG, I prefer to delete this page and merge some but useful informations about this page to its parent company. CSMention269 (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Information Sciences has been redirected to Volt Technical Resources, so its not a valid redirect target. scope_creep^Talk 12:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Then merge to Volt Technical Resources. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volt Technical Resources is going to be deleted off of Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 13:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:CRYSTAL. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to my user space Eamiles (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just found an independent review report on the company by a indepdenent consultancy, which likely make it notable per long-established consensus. scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be in addition to the already cited industry analyst reports? One is by Everest Group, and the other is HFS Research; both are independent organizations. Eamiles (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Does this mean that we can close this AFD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Ear[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 9 years, fails WP:NCORP. It's a small record label that had an output of 30. Not to be confused with other labels of the same name. Geschichte (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Geschichte Surely you should bundle this AfD with Inner Ear albums discography? Mach61 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete - There are some very notable entries in the music canon with this name but this isn’t one of them. No independent coverage cited at all. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep or Merge. The Discogs page cited by the nominator gives 30 releases, almost every one of which was put out by an artist of some note. That suggests the label meets WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indies. However, a goodly number of them are by the founders of the label, the brothers Tore Johansen and Roger Johansen, both of whom, you'll note, have articles. So a merge makes some sense - but so does keeping, since the eventual redirect to one or the other musician awkwardly excludes the other, and so pragmatically a separate article kind of makes more sense. But leaving a redlink here is the worst possible conclusion. Chubbles (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I should have done more research before my vote, I made a mistake. The current article is thinly sourced but the label seems to clearly meet notability criteria and should be improved not deleted. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that the label may confer notability upon its artists in no way confers notability upon the label. We should never have articles on subjects which lack the secondary sourcing to grow beyond a directory entry, as this label does. Mach61 (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Discogs, last.fm and the usual musical sites that don't help notability. Besides things related to the actual inside of the human ear, there isn't anything about this record label. Dutch and Norwegian wiki articles have one source, as does this one, so no help there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and definitely needs to be moved if not. It differentiates from another article by one single capitalized letter. JM (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:NMUSIC. I looked at the results for searches like "Inner Ear" plateselskapet site:.no and virtually all the results are brief mentions in the context of reviews of specific albums released by the label. The best result was [57], an interview with Tore Johansen that contains a tiny bit of detail about the label itself -- but still far from meeting notability requirements. Jfire (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the advantage of voting delete here - to add a redlink, rather than redirecting interested users to information about the label's founders (whose notability is not under question)? Chubbles (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No link^[1] would be preferable, as there is no primary redirect target. Mach61 (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So...if there's one primary redirect target, we should link to that target, but if there's two primary redirect targets, we should eliminate the link altogether? That doesn't serve the user interested in the topic; it actively frustrates the process of getting to relevant information that this website is carrying about the topic in question. Chubbles (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ (redlinks should have some chance of being notable, and should be removed if this is closed as delete)

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by Vietnam Television (VTV)[edit]

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

Fails NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY. Article is a giant list of programs formerly, currently, and soon to be broadcast. Entries have no context, references, information. Nothing is sourced so nothing to merge. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 06:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to bad translation. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, the majority of the article is in Vietnamese, this is an English Wikipedia, at least 90% of the stuff you see should be in English. Brachy08 _(Talk) 01:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not qualified per WP:NLIST. And there has been no work of translation for quite a while. CSMention269 (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bombo Radyo Philippines. ✗plicit 12:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKO[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. It could be redirected to Bombo Radyo Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. MarioGom (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Bombo Radyo Philippines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bombo Radyo Philippines per above; the two sources in the current article look like mere database entries which are worthless for Wikipedia notability, and a cursory WP:BEFORE search for other sources turns up nothing meaningful. Left guide (talk) 02:31, 5 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 Taj Mihelich. ✗plicit 12:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible One[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Terrible one

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Last AfD had mixed responses but ended as a keep - that was in 2006 when our standards were significantly lower. Boleyn (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Cycling, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Tal Mihelich, I find some limited coverage about him. [58], unsure if this is a RS, but it does confirm Mihelich is related to the company here.Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Taj Mihelich. The company exists, but there doesn't seem to be any info otherwise. — Maile (talk) 03:16, 5 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.

[1] Norington, Brad (4 August 2007). "Blog's breakfast". The Australian. p. 26.

[2] Hills, Rachel (28 October 2007). "Psephological blogger rhythms". The Age. p. 12.

[3] Price, Jenna (23 November 2007). "Playing possum with polls and politics". The Canberra Times. p. 9.

[4] Shanahan, Dennis (21 February 2008). "Pundits' margin of hypocrisy on polls". The Australian. p. 2.

[5] Kerr, Christian (15 June 2009). "Our blogs too analytical, intolerant". The Australian. p. 32.

[6] (redlinks should have some chance of being notable, and should be removed if this is closed as delete)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]