Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 24	January 26 >

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. Owen× ☎ 02:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AviaAM Leasing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not a single ref passes WP:SIRS. Before is a similar message. scope_creep^Talk 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Lithuania. Owen× ☎ 00:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Llajwa (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ ~~Weak Delete~~ is notable as an aviation company; while the sourcing is not the best here, a random Google search, especially in local newspapers or languages, shows pretty much coverage in reliable national media. --BoraVoro (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage would that be exactly? I've already a pretty comprehensive WP:BEFORE and I didn't see much at all. Have you got three per WP:THREE that can prove its notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP THREE is an essay, not a rule/guideline. BoraVoro (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE was cofirmed as best practice per consensus last summer. If you have evidence post it up. I don't think you do. I do think your a UPE though. scope_creep^Talk 09:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please send me that discussion, I would be glad to see it. I recently found out, that essays are not good way to discuss, that's why I do not rely on them. Also, don't blame in UPE me, it's not nice :) but I do see why you think so, as I am not for Deletion. You wanna change my mind? :) I may change the vote, but don't want to mess around with ~~Keep~~Delete. However, I do agree with the decision to delete the page - I did research more to prove my claim and found very little (regarding reliable sources). BoraVoro (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Delete - agree with @Scope creep and don't object WP:THREE rule to be applied here. BoraVoro (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather astonishingly, for a company that apparently operates 10 A320s, it is surprisingly bereft of RS, though the article is heavily WP:REFBOMBed in a way that creates an initial appearance to the contrary. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 02:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Sutherland District Council election[edit]

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

The election is not notable and is of negligible importance.

Simply does not pass WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This isn't like a parish council election in England, the district elections were covered in the national press because of their importance. For example, the analysis of the results was in The Scotsman. Unfortunately, the British Newspaper Archive doesn't have any papers from Sutherland in the 1970s to further establish notability but it would be the same level of coverage you would expect for any of the current unitary authorities. For comparison with the most recent local elections in the UK, this district council is on a par with the 152 district councils at 2023 United Kingdom local elections#District councils, all of which have their own article (I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep an article but the implication here is that all of those plus every other district council election in the UK are not notable and a simple WP:BEFORE will show that's not the case). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Good improvements. I think Template:1974 United Kingdom local elections is a clue. The fact that many of the Sutherland wards were unopposed and none contested by candidates representing political parties should not mean that we exclude this District from coverage that is seemingly non-controversial elsewhere. Ben Mac Dui 19:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands–Turkey relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is hardly anything to these relations: no trade, agreements or embassies. The 2 high level visits were part of multilateral forums. The MV Maersk Tigris incident is covered in its own article. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Oceania. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't seem to me that the article fails WP:GNG. Also, the details about MV Maersk Tigris incident is a minuscule amount of content in that article. Jothefiredragon (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)̃[reply]
Comment parts of the article has been edited since listing this AfD removing text based on fake references. What's left is not much relations. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per total lack of WP:SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 04:30, 17 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!} 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - the absence of embassies, high level diplomats, or treaties indicates that this is not notable; the lack of significant coverage is the nail in the coffin. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapstrap[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 18:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article creator. I have no objections to deleting this article. Triwbe (talk) 10:49, 19 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!} 23:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E. No opposition exists. There is very weak coverage, and what does exist seems to revolve around a reality show. This implicates the inventor getting 15 minutes of fame. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pater Sparrow[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 18 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!} 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Financial Manager[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First: If the programme was discontinued, as the article implies, then it is no longer of interest, is it? The article attempts to describe the certification but it is vague. And towards the end it mentions a completely different qualification (ChFM). It's a delete for me. Looks incoherent and somewhat lost. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:30, 18 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!} 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Defunct, run of the mill certification; few current reliable sources exist. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRUMBS[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 18 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!} 23:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non notable. Llajwa (talk) 15:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and lack of sources. I did look for a few book and news sources - and found nothing. The current article notes a few sources, but they don't look reliable. Please message or alert me if you find anything. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rory O'Connor (filmmaker)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 18 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!} 23:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He seems to be some kind of newspaper editor and film/TV producer, both of which are quite ordinary. If you can show additional significant coverage about him, please do add more, and alert the media. This is a common name, so searches of social media and the Internet show lots of men with similar names. If it's the same person, his LinkedIn account reveals that we have at least 5 connections in common, one of which is MGodwin, which is why I'm not !voting. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article isn't in great shape, but the awards over the course of his career demonstrate notability within his profession. 20:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Thriley (talk)
Keep Keep for essentially the same reasons given by Thriley, supra. One problem here is that he's identified as "filmmaker" when properly his description should be "journalist" (encompassing both print and television journalism). His bio link on Amazon is in some ways more helpful than his LinkedIn page. It's here: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B001JS90BC/about . MikeGodwin (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Orwell Award and George Polk Awards are notable awards he has won, plus the documentaries he did to win them are thus notable for winning notable awards. WP:ANYBIO number 1 for the awards. Dream Focus 22:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His biography is impressive actually. This would be no problem to turn into a good quality article, should anyone want to take the time. It's very easy, look for reviews of the works he was involved in, and quote the reviews about the works. This is the gold standard of artistic notability on Wikipedia, reviews of works. His name is common, it's hard to search, but search on his name + one of his more famous works, and viola, interesting results. The awards alone tell us not to hastily delete the article. I think the COI and some other tags are not required any longer. Anyway problems it may have, but these are not AfD-level problems. -- GreenC 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I search for "George Polk Award" and his name and find no evidence. The Wikipedia article for List of George Polk Award winners doesn't list him and a search for site:https://www.liu.edu/ "Rory O'Connor" to search their official website doesn't list him anywhere. Dream Focus 07:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Globalvision, which O’Connor is president of, was given the award. it seems to have been a small organization at the time so it is sensible to say he won the award, or at least was part of the staff that won it. Thriley (talk) 07:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just made a draft for the program: Draft:South Africa Now. Exactly the type of subject that is underrepresented on Wikipedia. Thriley (talk) 07:23, 1 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 14:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MATA bus fleet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST - I cannot find reliable sources that discuss the agency's bus fleet as a whole, merely run-of-the-mill coverage of individual types entering service. The vast majority of information here is uncited, and several of the citations are self-published sources. A substantially condensed and properly cited list of current fleet would be appropriate at Memphis Area Transit Authority, but Wikipedia is not a database of unsourced trivia about all-time fleets. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and Tennessee. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merging the condensed current fleet with the main page. But how do you recommend properly citing fleet information when it is not published by the transit agency? ElToAn123 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fleet lists are generally in the realm of WP:FANCRUFT and very few would ever have enough reliable independent (non self-published) coverage to be considered notable. This one is no exception. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 21 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!} 23:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NLIST, doesn't serve a purpose under WP:CLN. No objection to a consensus redirect, but do not think it helpful. // Timothy :: talk 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by NLIST or NOTDB. Less detailed tables would have worked with a detailed article on the MATA bus operations. gidonb (talk) 05:49, 1 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 14:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolly Farms[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing proving notability. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. Seawolf35 ^T--C 23:14, 18 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!} 23:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. It sounds like a great idea for a small company that can take advantage of ONDC but that's not part of the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is interesting but there's no evidence that it meets our notabilty requirements. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Ali Nasayyif[edit]

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

ZERO SIGCOV found. All sources present in the article as well as from Google, the NYT, AP, JSTOR, and TWL bring up no significant coverage. Though he did meet NATH, such SIGCOV is unable to be found – calling it a GNG fail. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Iraq. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added the subject's native names to the article. It looks like there are SIGCOV matches in the Al-Riyadih newspaper archive, for example see p. 22 here has exact match for his Arabic name Arabic: حسين علي نصيف. This demonstrates significant coverage in durable media, meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. --Habst (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks my "share" link did not go to the proper edition of the newspaper, a more precise link with the name highlighted is here. It has his full name in prose surrounded by athletics imagery, during the time when he was most active. --Habst (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a routine recap of Islamic Sports Championship results for multiple athletes and events. The start of that section says The context matches resulted in the following results, which we list here:. The one sentence mentioning him just notes that he was first in the 500-meter race and Fahim Abdel Sada was second; every other sentence in that list has the same format (e.g. "سياق ١١١‏ متر مواتع الاول حبار رحيمه والوقت /ار5١‏ ثانية والثاني زهير جبر والوقت كن؟١‏" is Context: 111 meters. The first is Hibar Rahima and the time is 51 seconds. The second is Zuhair Jabr and the time was...) This is not SIGCOV. @BeanieFan11 JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your research. Could you please share your source for the translation, or say if it was translated by you? I tried to machine translate the article, but I could not do it because of the OCR. The fact that Ali Nasayyif ran a 500 metres race is interesting to me, as that distance is quite rare in athletics especially outdoors. It may also be another avenue for SIGCOV research. I'm also not sure what "111 metres" means in this context, but it may not be related to Nasayyif. --Habst (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy the text surrounding a hit and paste it into Google Translate. I just searched that page for all mentions of "الاول" ("first" as in "first place"), which I noticed was in every sentence. Non-standard distances are common in domestic tournaments, athletes will just run whichever distance is closest to their "usual" when competing internationally, it's nothing interesting. The 111 meters quote does not mention Nasayyif, it's just an example of the trivial coverage each of those results bits contains. I used it because the translation was slightly better. The one for Nasayyif says The first 500 MT race is Hussein Ali Nassif, and the time is for rent a second, and the second is Fahim Abdel Sada, and the time is for rent for a second. Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you. The copying isn't working at all for me, maybe it is just my browser but when I try to select text it keeps selecting text from other sections, it seems like the OCR program doesn't understand the flow of Arabic text. But when I search for just his last name حسين, I get 5 hits on page 22 alone. Is it possible he is discussed elsewhere in the article, but only addressed by last name as would be common once he is already introduced? It might be helpful to look for pronouns "he" / "him" if they are applicable in Arabic as well. --Habst (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just occurred to me that maybe حسين is actually the subject's first name, because Arabic is read right to left. So maybe he is addressed by that name, or maybe by pronouns. Also, considering as Iraq only sent six sprinters to the 1980 Olympics, one would expect that if even "domestic tournaments" are covered, then surely the Olympics would merit coverage from this publication, so we should search the archives from those dates. It would be helpful to have the entire article translated as well just to be sure. --Habst (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"حسين" is just "Hussein", one of the most common given names in the world. Of course there will be more hits for that name in an Arabic newspaper... Are you selecting text from the "search inside" result snippets, or from the document itself? JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. I think that just because a subject uses a common name, does not mean that there should be a bias against their inclusion in the encyclopedia (even if that bias is not a conscious one, but one based on the mechanics of the searching process).

I was trying to select from the document itself, if I select text from "search inside" then the only phrase I can see is the one you mentioned above, though Google translates mine with a different meaning There are 500 left, the first is Hussein Ali Nassif, and time is for rent again, and the second is Fahim Abdul Sada, and time is for rent again. --Habst (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really arguing that we should presume SIGCOV might exist, contra explicit P&Gs, on the basis that you expect any of those hits for "Hussein" elsewhere in the newspaper to be for Nassif, despite no evidence that Arabic uses a first name alone as the sole and introductory referent when a last name exists, and despite the incredibly obvious problems that would present for name-sparse cultures in particular?

You have to search for other words that appear in those entries...like the one I mentioned. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your challenge because it helps find sources for the article. I'm saying that athletes with common names deserve extra scrutiny when looking for sources, especially when they are already proven to have met WP:NATH as Ali Nasayyif does, which means that (quoting NATH), Significant coverage is likely to exist. This is following the guideline. One lead we have is we know that this Arabic Al-Riyadih publication thinks that even small domestic athletics tournaments are worth covering, including Ali Nasayyif. If that is true, then surely the Olympics / Asian games (where the subject won a medal) and the Iranian athletes there would be covered in great detail. Given that we know significant coverage is likely via NATH, a more thorough investigation is needed that would require checking the Al-Riyadih archives from those dates. --Habst (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained in countless other AfDs, SPORTCRIT #5 requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article, regardless of particulars like nationality, time period, "having a common first name", etc. That coverage is "likely to exist" according to NATH does not override this requirement and does not obligate us to assume coverage exists or to go beyond a standard BEFORE. The whole reason we got rid of the presumptions of notability in NSPORT in the first place was because these criteria turned out to be terrible predictors of GNG, even for contemporary athletes in English-speaking countries. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did search for Olympics coverage in Al-Riyadh and elsewhere and could not find mention of Nassif. We have the name that particular newspaper uses for him, we have its Olympics coverage of the days on which he competed archived, and we still didn't get any hits. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. As I explain in Special:Diff/1198405835, that section of SPORTCRIT is plainly contradictory to the rest of the guideline, and SPORTCRIT does not override the "likely to exist" statements.

Putting aside SPORTCRIT and NATH entirely, just think about the particulars of this case. We know that Ali Nasayyif competed in two events in athletics at the Olympics, which is the marquee event at the Olympics. We know that Ali Nasayyif is a continental medal-winner as he won silver at the Asian Games (which is the most prestigious athletics competition in Asia). We also know that his races were so important that even a small domestic tournament merited coverage from Al Riyadh, a dominant paper in the geographic center of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that the subject is not even Saudi Arabian. All of these facts combined lean towards signifcant coverage being significantly likely to exist, barring a Library of Alexandria-burning situation.

@JoelleJay, if you searched for Olympics coverage in Al-Riyadh, can you please link the Olympics coverage from the webarchive, so we can search for the subject inside? I don't see how we can say that the subject is not covered in Al-Riyadh if we have not even looked at their Olympic coverage – which they have certainly done as even domestic athletics competitions have merited articles. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "likely to exist" statements were added after the RfC, to comply with the results of that RfC which said no criteria could "presume notability" anymore. This does not mean a subject for whom old criteria claim coverage is "likely to exist" does not still need to have IRS SIGCOV cited in their article.

The July 14 coverage is also of some Islamic sports tournament, not something from a single country.

Why do you think there would be any coverage whatsoever in Al Riyadh of non-Saudi athletes who barely made it to the quarterfinals? We have the newspaper edition from July 28 when the quarterfinals were held and they don't even mention the race. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. I don't think that no criteria could "presume notability" is a consistent position with some criteria can mean that sources are likely to exist in the context of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the criteria claiming that coverage is likely to exist for the subject is not old, it is current, as his Asian Games medal meets NATH regardless of any presumed notability for Olympians.

I said that the 14 July competition was domestic because I can't translate the article and I was going off what you said about it, Non-standard distances are common in domestic tournaments. If it was an Islamic sports tournament encompassing multiple countries, that could mean there is a possibility that more in-depth coverage of this competition exists. Given that we know the subject's name حسين (Hussein) appears 5 times on that page, even if one or two of the matches are for someone else who shares his name, I think it is worth looking into all the matches.

As they did in the 14 July article, I think that Al Riyadh might find it in their interest to cover athletes who their readers are familiar with, like the subject who we know was covered at least once by the paper. I wonder if we would have more luck with the 29 July edition, as I would expect the coverage to be delayed by at least a day given how newspapers are typically published. --Habst (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Habst. AGF on his findings (I can't read the source). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of SIGCOV as detailed above.

JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent sources. Sources are all routine game reports where the subject is mentioned briefly, not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Just because the name is common doesn't give the subject a pass from the notability guidelines. A BEFORE check didn't come up with much more than trivial mentions. Let'srun (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun, thank you for responding. I thought about our sources and took another look at the Al-Riyadh article snippet.

I am re-reading my translation and I see, There are 500 left, the first is Hussein Ali Nassif, and time is for rent again, and the second is Fahim Abdul Sada, and time is for rent again. Because 500 metres outdoor competitions are extremely rare in athletics, I would be more inclined to say that this is only describing the end of a race, i.e. the last 500 metres of an 800 m – implying that we haven't even translated coverage of the rest. I think there is no way that we can say that the mentions are only brief, when we have not even translated the entire article or the Olympic/Asian Games coverage of Al-Riyadh. What do you think?

P.S. I think I have mentioned this before, but I am curious about the origins of your Wikipedia username if you don't mind sharing. --Habst (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

........are you trolling us now? This is an article that describes itself as a list of results. It indeed provides a list of results in the format of "event, first place performance, second place performance", which would be exceedingly obvious if you actually performed the search for "الاول" I suggested to you earlier. You think an article with 16 paragraph-separated single sentences, each containing the word "first", is providing any SIGCOV?

And I don't know what translation tool you're using for سباق 5٠٠‏ متو الاول حسين على نصيف والزمن كراء ثانية والثاتي فاهم عبد السادة والزمن رلاء ثانية but Google says it's The first 500 MT race is Hussein Ali Nassif, and the time is for rent a second, and the second is Fahim Abdel Sada, and the time is for rent for a second. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:12, 25 January 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
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV	1. Hussain Ali Nasayyif at Tilastopaja (registration required)
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV	2. ^ "The Guardian". 29 July 1980.
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV	3. ^ Evans, Hilary; Gjerde, Arild; Heijmans, Jeroen; Mallon, Bill; et al. "Hussain Ali Nasayyif Olympic Results". Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC. Archived from the original on 18 April 2020. Retrieved 3 August 2017.
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV	4. ^ Asian Games Results. GBR Athletics. Retrieved on 2014-10-04.

Habst point has been accurately rebutted effectively by JoelleJay; other keep votes have provided nothing. BLPs require strong sourcing; if there were three sources with SIGCOV, all the words above would be unneeded. // Timothy :: talk 16:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Guminsky[edit]

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

The subject is an American college football coach who was recently named to his first head coaching position, albeit at the NAIA level. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, neither on Google nor Newspapers.com. JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no presumption of notability for coaches in the NAIA, the lowest rung of college football. With one exception, the sources cited in the article are the schools where Guminsky played or worked and thus are not independent. The one exception is the piece from "BVM Sports", and I have doubts about its status as a reliable source given that they invite anyone to submit stories. See the "about" page here. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per the creator's request on the talk page. Could get coverage in the near future as a newly-named college football head coach. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject lacks the coverage needed to meet the WP:GNG as a WP:BLP. Let'srun (talk) 14:32, 1 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 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEDD-LD[edit]

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even in Los Angeles, it's hard to imagine a low-power station that started within this century and has seemingly only carried national programming getting the requisite significant coverage. (It does not help that these articles for such low-profile stations have tended to attract unsourced, not-always-accurate, IP edits.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hammond[edit]

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

Successful career, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Journalism, Television, Horse racing, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Too many primary sources. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 23:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Quentin X (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is interested in looking further for sources, I've found an article (alternate link) in The Times and one from The Daily Telegraph, both from 2018, and a 2021 career update from Broadcast magazine. Bridget (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a close call, but I find the arguments of those advocating deletion to be more substantial and persuasive, particularly the in-depth analysis from Timothy that went unchallenged. As an aside, the back and forth discussion between some editors in the debate wasn't helpful. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Myles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the "Google test". Had a previous no-consensus AfD 13 or 14 years prior. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This [1] I think is the same person. We don't have much of anything for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received nominations for important awards. See previous Afd and page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Oh, the irony of AfD. Articles (including those of living people!) are ignored until there's a seven day time limit. Now there are citations proving that not only does Peter Myles exist, he's been nominated for a couple awards that also exist...at least, according to a couple of listings that don't have an author byline (we treat such sites as though they're self-published without editorial oversight/unpublished), and only one source that probably did have an editor look it over. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Did he or did he not receive nominations? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another site that attests to the fact that Myles won the Golden Reel Award in 2017. Toughpigs (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs Judging by the "S&P Staff" byline, that's a press release, so doesn't count toward notability (since it probably didn't go through editorial oversight). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank Most likely, but it's hard to tell if there's no reliable sourcing to attest to that. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. So would you agree to say that he's therefore most likely notable, especially as, according to your own assessment, one source at least attests to the fact that he did at least receive one nomination? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank No, because I'm looking for 3-5 sources to satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement stated in the general notability guidelines (which are summarized here.) I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to that essay that's indeed associated with a quite important guideline. 3-5? OK, sure. I cannot see those numbers in the link you directed me to but they're probably a translation of "multiple" (present, if I remember well, in the original guideline at some point) (my personal understanding of multiple makes it start at 2, but 3-5 is indeed more and the more the merrier). I never doubted you knew guidelines quite well, so it's probably useless to remind you that ANYBIO states: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Right, there needs to be multiple sources, and two sources are...less than ideal for a living person. Then there's the fact that the award is supposed to be both well-known and significant; I don't know about this award, and I can't verify that's it's well known by people in the film editing industry. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This site reports that Myles won the Golden Reel award in 2017; if that's a press release, then the release comes from the people who give the awards. There's no reason to doubt the veracity of the award-givers. Toughpigs (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of the veracity of the award givers, it's a question of how an award can be notable at all if it isn't one that gets any third-party media coverage reporting its award presentations as news. If all you had to do to make a person "notable because award" was source it to content self-published by the presenters of said award, then we'd have to start keeping articles about high school valedictorians and people who won employee of the month at fast-food franchises — so it isn't a matter of whether or not we can locate just any verification whatsoever that the award claim is technically true, it's a matter of whether or not we can locate evidence that the media consider said award to be important enough to independently report as news. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even awards only count as notability claims to the extent that they can be referenced to media coverage to demonstrate that said award is notable in the first place — an award must itself pass WP:GNG on its sourceability before it can extend any notability to its nominees or winners, and cannot hand its nominees or winners an instant notability freebie if you have to rely on the award's own self-published content about itself to source the claim because media reportage is non-existent. It's not a question of whether anybody thinks the awards are telling the truth or lying about their own honorees — it's a question of whether the award is notable at all if it doesn't have media coverage. Simply put, Peter Myles cannot be "inherently" notable under WP:ANYBIO for winning an award that does not itself pass WP:NEVENT standards for awards, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than has actually been shown. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Golden Reel Award is notable enough that we've got an article on Golden Reel Awards 2022, which was hosted by Patton Oswalt and included Tom Cruise as a presenter. It looks to me like this is more than an employee of the month. Toughpigs (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not until you can source the claim that he won one to some evidence of third party coverage about the 2017 awards, it's not. The extent to which it counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the reliability and independent thirdpartyness of the specific source you use to specifically footnote his own personal victories and/or nominations, and has absolutely nothing to do with who hosted or presented awards in a different year than the one you're trying to render into a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does this or this, or this or this correspond to what you have in mind? Other coverage of that type exists. Please don't ask me for sources proving the notability of the sources that show the notability of the sources (:D), thank you in advance. As for the notability of the GRA, I've added a few sources to the MPSE page, in case anyone should doubt they are an important award. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank Bearcat and I aren't asking for proof that the sources are notable, we're asking for sources to prove the award itself is noted by other people to determine if Myles is noted by the nomination by said awards. Truthfully, this sort of scrutiny needs to be done for any article on a living person.

While the sources you provided might prove the notability of the awards, they don't significantly mention Myles, and notability isn't inherited; are there any sources at all that's not a press release where Myles is significantly mentioned (talked about for at least an entire paragraph) that's not a press release or interview? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may be mistaken but I don't think that Bearcat and you were asking the same thing. Still this reply is to your last comment and it's the following: The sources I provided here do not mean to prove the notability of the award. They prove Myles received the awards and nominations. If anyone doubts the award is notable, let them see the article about the MPSE, where I have added sources (not that they were totally needed). But to make sure I understand: you do now agree that he actually received the awards and nominations? and that they are important? If so, you will agree that he does meet one of the inclusionary requirements for notability then, won't you? What does this have to do with "inherited notabilty"? (!) As for one paragraph or more about him (in order for him to meet also the general requirements), does this or this (signed) (or this type of coverage) satisfy you or will you find it is not independent enough, as being the introduction to an interview/event? Even if that should be the case, I'm afraid that I will leave it at that, if I may. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it. Notability is never a question of what the article says, and always a question of how well the article does or doesn't reference the things it says to media. So you can take the snark you directed at me and point it at somebody who actually has some flying honks to give about it, because nobody is ever notable for winning an award that isn't being sourced properly — so if you want to claim that a person is notable because award, the onus is on you to show the correct kind of sourcing to make that notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had not only submitted 4 links to your assessment here but also added sources to the page about the award but apparently you didn't read that part of my reply nor check the MPSE page but rather decided that my joke about sources deserved your wrath and contempt. I didn't except your gratitude and thanks for providing the sources you requested, but still, I am not particularly impressed by your sense of humour, to be totally honest with you. Anyway, again, and especially given the tone and content of your last reply, I'll leave it at that. Thank you for sharing your opinion about notability. The awards and nominations were received, the awards are important, sources tend to prove it; now, what Wikipedia does of this is another thing, and what your personal views about this are, yet another one. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank Whether or not you like the tonality of Bearcats' comment, he is correct when he say Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it. I don't see any joking around in the comment; then again, tonality isn't conveyed well (if at all!) in texg. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I suppose, when you say tonality isn't conveyed well (if at all!) in texg and that can indeed be a cause of problems and misunderstanding. But indeed I don't care very much for the quite unambiguous tone of Bearcat's comment, especially because it's a reply to a post where I presented sources that they requested. I did spent quite some time looking for and presenting sources you and Bearcat requested. They show, in my view, that the award/nominations were received by Myles (see here and the article), and, on the MPSE article, that this is an important award. I have the feeling that I am repeating myself and perhaps that you are not reading the sources you are requesting, to tell the truth.

Indeed when you mention that Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it., that is obviously correct, sure, but I thought that the sources presented were precisely addressing this very issue (veracity of the award, significance of the award) and, on top of this, all of this seems already contained in a more concise way in the quotation in bold of ANYBIO, above, in my opinion, but no harm in rephrasing it, certainly.

You don't see "joking around" in whose comments? Mine? May I quote myself then? (I'll do it in red, not green because it's not someone else I quote) Please don't ask me for sources proving the notability of the sources that show the notability of the sources (:D), thank you in advance."(it has a laughing face in it, emphasis mine) was intended as a joke. I suppose that was perceived as snark but even then, reading the rest of the comment (and the sources it contained, and referred to, on another page) would have, I think, made the general spirit/intended tone clear (or clearer).

Now, if you would excuse me, I really have no further comment to add to this conversation. If you haven't, please kindly read the various sources I provided 1) here, 2) on the page and 3) on the award page. As much as I am interested in general discussions about the concept of notability on Wikipedia and in real life, I think the main focus here should be on whether Myles is notable or not. I've asked simple questions in my latest comments and received no direct answers (neither from Bearcat nor from you). You requested sources, I did my best to provide them at three different venues. If you still think it's not enough, my time was spent in vain, that's too bad but there's nothing much I can do about it. If you think they address the issue, I'm glad to hear it. Again, thank you for time and replies. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I don't see what he's done that has been notable. If he has been nominated for an Academy Award or a Juno, we need to see that. But right now, there's nothing on the page but a list of things that he's worked on. Film editors are not automatically notable, and getting an award from other film editors doesn't prove notability. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a film editor, He is a film music editor, that is what he does and that is what one award and multiple nominations salute. Sources presented here are precisely meant to show the veracity of the award/nominations..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Regardless of whether he's a film editor, or a film music editor, he's still not automatically notable. Actors and actresses aren't automatically notable, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But who said he was automatically notable??????????? ......Please read again my comment carefully, and the extensive comments I have already made about this, and ANYBIO, and the pages involved (this Afd, the article discussed and the page about the awards). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)9:22 am, Today (UTC+0) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:25, 2 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
Name listed with other noms, "Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing meeting SIGCOV	1. Neglia, Matt (2022-01-24). "The 2021 Motion Picture Sound Editors (MPSE) Golden Reel Award Nominations". Next Best Picture. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
Named in list, "Supervising Music Editors: Clint Bennett, Ryan Rubin Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing SIGCOV	2. ^ "Motion Picture Sound Editors Awards: Full 2022 Nominees". headlinermagazine.net. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
Name in database table, nothing meeting SIGCOV	3. ^ "Top Grossing Music Editor at the Worldwide Box Office". The Numbers. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
	From above
Interview, fails WP:IS	https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/classical-music/2021-04-10/icymi-film-music-editor-peter-myles-in-conversation-with-classical-ipr
Name in list, "Music Editors: Michael Bauer, Peter Myles", nothing meeting SIGCOV	https://soundandpicture.com/2017/02/64th-annual-mpse-golden-reel-awards-winners-announced/
Name mention in list "Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing meets SIGCOV	https://deadline.com/2022/01/golden-reel-awards-2022-nominations-motion-picture-sound-editors-1234918482/

Stopped reviewing the above keep refs, they are just more of the same, it is obvious this is just ref spamming award nominations and name mentions and its nothing but a timesink, eg: "Music Editor: Peter Myles", is obviously not SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 15:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment Stopped reviewing the above keep refs, they are just more of the same, it is obvious this is just ref spamming award nominations and name mentions and its nothing but a timesink is, for me, I confess, at best unclear.... those brief mentions (and they are obviously not meant to pass as developed coverage) were required by other users to attest of the award/nominations received. If the users (including me) who presented them had not presented them, the veracity of the said award/nominations that may have the subject meet the requirements of ANYBIO could have been challenged. Timesink? Yes, probably, I agree. Are the award/nominations real? Are they significant?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Brief mentions don't pass SIGCOV, and so don't prove notability; therefore, they don't prove the awards/nominations are significant. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
......Please read again my comment carefully, and the extensive comments I have already made about this, and ANYBIO, and the pages involved (this Afd, the article discussed and the page about the awards). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 2 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 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hittman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC due to no charting discography and lack of viable third-party coverage. Biggest claim to fame was coattailing more notable artists on Aftermath. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least redirect to 2001 (Dr. Dre album). Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's Prep[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school, and added some references, but do not think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. The references are all primary, brief mentions, or self-published. I did find an article in the local paper about a school concert in 1935, but although this is a non-trivial mention of the school it is routine and run-of-the-mill information. There are or have been at least four other schools called St David's Preparatory, in Huddersfield, Didsbury, Naas and Farnborough, which makes searching more difficult. Tacyarg (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Permastub since 2007, because there doesn't seem to be anything notable about it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD[edit]

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

Unable to find the requisite significant coverage for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. [[2]] probably qualifies, but one source isn't enough. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's #2. Those two sources alone help. It's understandable that coverage of this LPTV trails off into nothing. The fact that it was supposed to be a Star Television Network affiliate (as in your source) is a surprise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:05, 10 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) 17:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep. All the sources so far scream WP:ROUTINE, even including a local fight over an antenna (snooze), and I couldn't find anything else substantial, but I have a soft spot for almanac entries in the Wikipedia, and that's how I think of populated places as well as radio/TV stations of any size. They are what we may call naturally connecting subjects that provide information that everyday folks may be looking up. Per that and WP:NOTPAPER, I can't see that keeping it particularly harms an encyclopedia. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gliere[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted on 31 May 2023 following an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Gliere). It still fails to show notability, and searches don't find anything beyond what was there in May. The only reference is the subject's own we site. Gronk Oz (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gronk Oz (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:NMUSIC with no viable independent coverage. Article is also purely promotional if the only source cited therein wasn't enough of an indication. Her infobox consists of one whole word. External links (since removed) had zero connection to the subject, and then the nonsense content about prized possessions. Should probably be salted since article was recreated following first clear delete consensus. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She sings at a benefit for Ukraine, and two other PR items are all I find about this individual. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMUSIC and WP:NMUSICOTHER. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jamaican books[edit]

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

Superseded by Category:Jamaican books for "books by Jamaicans". "List of books about Jamaicans" doesn't seem to have a category, but we do have Category:Books about Jamaica and Category:Jamaican novels, which presumably covers any of those books.

I don't think this list makes sense to keep (topic is too broad, containing both books about and by Jamaicans), but it could be split, if there's consensus for that. At least some of these are spam entries though (lulu.com books, etc). asilvering (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and Jamaica. asilvering (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list only makes since if it only list those with their own Wikipedia articles, and contains columns listing various information to make it more useful than a category at finding things. Dream Focus 18:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎. Deleted by Bbb23 per G5. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make Arabic as the state language of Pakistan[edit]

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

Article created by a Bengali LTA, see log (Special:Contributions/202.134.13.132). Not sure why it was moved to main namespace, we should not encourage LTA. This version is exactly same as previously deleted version by User:Bbb23 & User:Izno (log). Also, previously User:Bilorv declined the article (see User_talk:103.67.156.64#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Proposal_to_make_Arabic_as_the_state_language_of_Pakistan_(December_23)).

Anyway, this is a WP:OR article. There was some talk but that's it, this wasn't' any sort of official proposals or any historical movement etc. Other than some mentions, i don't see any WP:SIGCOV. At best, article should be merge with Languages of Pakistan#Arabic. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous (adjective)[edit]

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

Clear WP:DICDEF. The examples in the "article" are copied directly from wikt:ubiquitous. This could, I suppose, be soft redirected to Wiktionary, but deletion seems better to me. Deor (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the other way around:

I was compliant to the recommendation of this being directed to Wiktionary, as one option, and wrote the quotes section for wikt:ubiquitous, in case that becomes the decided option.Starlighsky (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like an utterly unnecessary content fork of Ubiquitous computing Geschichte (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. As it was when the article was started, the link for defining ubiquitous was incorrect. The article is an effort to correct the information. Starlighsky (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are too many problems with theological terms being confused with terms in medicine, computer science, and other topics.

Here is the lede for omnipresence:

Omnipresence (redirect from Ubiquity (ability)) Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present anywhere and everywhere. The term omnipresence is most often used in a religious context... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 02:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary or else delete. The disambiguator (adjective) in the title marks this as dictionary content, which belongs at Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to title the article Ubiquitous, but it was already taken as an article that redirects to omnipresent.

Allowing this article to titled Ubiquitous could solve several problems at once. Starlighsky (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a dictionary definition, and redundant with the Wiktionary page (which, like any dictionary, is fully able to clarify separate uses in different domains). No need to redirect. Llajwa (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is so many technical terms in medicine and computer science were redirected from ubiquitous to omnipresence.

Here is an example of the problem here on Wikipedia:

Omnipresence (redirect from Ubiquity (ability)) Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present anywhere and everywhere. The term omnipresence is most often used in a religious context... Starlighsky (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some trouble following here. Is the idea that this should be a WP:DAB page for Ubiquitous computing and Omnipresence? (I'm not seeing any consistent usage of ubiquitous as a concept in medicine...) Even if future editors decide that's a good idea, I would delete this article and just expand Ubiquitous into a disambiguation page... or just redirect to Ubiquity. Suriname0 (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook case of WP:DICDEF. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The outcome of this discussion is relevant to the following redirect for discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 25#Ubiquitous ; Suriname0 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, To put a finer point in it, if it's just a definition and list of examples, then it violates DICDEF. Yet if it explores the impact and cultural examples of a word, then it's notable. I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesnar–Reigns rivalry[edit]

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

Looks like fan wiki article with the storyline parts from both wrestlers merged here. No actual recognition of the rivalry itself by reliable secondary sources. Also, one of the main facts that these two have starred the most together at Mania main event is factually incorrect, Austin-Rock is another to main event thrice. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Martial arts. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly don't add Wrestling to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts, it's not related martial arts, it's scripted. Thank you. Lethweimaster (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any significant independent coverage of this rivalry that is required to show notability. All the references to event results are irrelevant since pro wrestling is scripted. That is why wrestlers fall under WP:ENTERTAINER and not WP:NSPORTS. Papaursa (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that this is a niche fan wiki. Winditaround (talk) 20:19, 1 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 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamath Eka Malak[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. Got a flutter of mentions in 2014, but not WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Disability, Discrimination, and Sri Lanka. PepperBeast (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom non notable no SIGCOV.Tame Rhino (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DX Studio. The appropriate WP:ATD under these circumstances. DX Studio is also up for deletion, although with an unclear outcome as of this writing. Sandstein 08:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldweaver[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. I am unable to identify any reliable source about the company or its product (e.g. DX Studio). OceanHok (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Technology, and United Kingdom. OceanHok (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable WP:CORP with an unsourced article - regardless of the sourcing, neither the software or game associated with the company seem particularly major enough to merit a developer article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DX Studio. IgelRM (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shenandoah County, Virginia. There is rough consensus against keeping the article, and the redirect target mentions the topic. Whether and what to say about the Senedos there, given the discussion below about the unreliability of available sources, is a content matter to be resolved by further discussion on the target article talk page. Sandstein 08:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senedo people[edit]

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

Almost no information about this group of people exists. Hodge includes one 1882 mention of them in his Handbook of North Americans North of Mexico but says that, "The statement is of doubtful authenticity." No further information can be added to this article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. Yuchitown (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Do we have a specific notability guideline that applies to Native American tribes? I was able to find a page discussing the tribe in the 1833 History of the Valley of Virginia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think the article should follow notability guidelines for any other group. Historically, sometimes villages were considered “tribes.” For instance, the Raritan people were two totally different communities who happened to live in the same area. Yuchitown (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchtiown[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a couple of books under external links that give us more information on this tribe. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How closely did you read those? I moved them to the talk page, but please see WP:BLOGS and WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. Yuchitown (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Delete - From what I can tell, pretty much every article talking about this people takes their information from Samuel Kercheval's 1850 book, A History of the Valley of Virginia, where he talks about them on page 33. This is what it describes:

- There were at least two accounts of Native people who claimed their entire nation was decimated in the 17th century

He further extrapolates:

- They lived along the North Fork Shenandoah prior to the 17th century

- In the 17th century, there was a massacre which killed all but at least 2

- There is a possible mass grave attributed to them in that area

The other main source is the 1882 book The History of Augusta County, which claims:

-The name Shenandoah means "beautiful daughter of the stars,"

-They lived on the North Fork Shenandoah until they were massacred (likely from Kercheval,1850).

As discussed, the authenticity of this claim, and thus Kercheval's original, were dismissed as doubtful by Hodge. There is, from what I can tell, no other credible source which mentions the Senedo, not stemming from Kercheval. So, what we have, is a tribe which is mentioned in one source which has been dismissed by an anthropologist. I don't think this merits any real mention in an article, much less an entire article. PersusjCP (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've found two sources, plus further sources discussing those two sources. That sounds like it passes GNG and that there should be an article on WP about this, which would include the judgements of Hodge and others about the historicity of the people. Furius (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is one main source, in which it is just a few paragraphs worth of information. Blogs and other websites aren't reliable sources. The other reliable source, Peyton is just a summary of the first with no analysis, and is not very useful. The only other source is Hodge, who claims the original claim (through Peyton) is doubtful.

Looking at WP:GNG, it does not have "significant coverage" in the secondary sources. In Hodge and Peyton, it is a trivial mention. In Kercheval, it is more, but not "significant coverage." It doesn't have significant coverage in any source. If there is any article which discusses the Indigenous peoples of Appalachia, or the Shenandoah Valley, it should have a mention there. I don't think it merits its own article. PersusjCP (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Kercheval source which contains a full page on the subject qualifies as SIGCOV at least. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is one source enough for an entire article? PersusjCP (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not for any other subject on Wikipedia, but it's probably not worth wasting more time on this subject. Thank you for all your research! Yuchitown (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Comment -- This is not a vote, as I know nothing, but Shenandoah County, Virginia has a short passage on the origin of the name that seems to cover the same ground. Would that be an appropriate redirect target? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've done research myself on the sources provided here and looking for others and it's my determination there isn't enough to keep. We have one source that is a few paragraphs long, some blogs and self-published websites, one source that says the other is doubtful, and then this Kercheval source which may or may not be considered SIGCOV. It might have been alright to create the article but once it comes under the eye of scrutiny I think it requires at least three sources independent of each other, meaning they do not simply repeat or summarize, giving the subject significant coverage. I don't see that in this case. --ARose Wolf 12:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selective merge as suggested into Shenandoah County, Virginia per Peterkingiron. This is one of those excellent cases where a redirect or smerger is appropriate; we try to do anything other than outright deletion for what is clearly useful, sourced information. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is fine with me. Yuchitown (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the argument that we have sources now is exemplified thus:
Following is a list of all of the known tribes residing in or resoring to the valley in 1716–1732 taken from Peyton's History of Augusta County:
[…]
It is not known to what nation or tribe the Senedo belongs, as there is no reference to them in the older books; it is possible that the name was invented to account for the term Shenandoah […]
— Fowke, Gerard (1894). Archeologic Investigations in James and Potomac Valleys. Bulletin. Vol. 23. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology. ISSN 0081-0223., p.72

This name is mentioned because Kercheval wrote about a supposed tribe called Senedo. The source of his information was tradition. Numerous other writers have copied with amplification what he wrote about these Indians, who were supposed to have lived on the North Branch of the Shenandoah and who were reported exterminated by the Southern Indians in 1731 (Peyton's History of Augusta County); some guess they were Cherokees and others presumed they were some other enemy tribe. If the Senedos ever existed they were exterminated before 1722, because at the Treaty of Albany (1722), Governor Spotswood expressly named each Indian tribe then living in Virginia, and the Senedoes were not among them. Furthermore, the Handbook of American indians published by the Bureau of American Athnology of the Smithsonian Institution dismisses references to the Senedoes as "of doubtful authenticity".
— Couper, William (1952). History of the Shenandoah Valley. Vol. 1. Lewis Historical Publishing Company., p.122
We have sources that do all of the AFD work for us. They tell us that there's just one source for this, they name it, and they cast doubt upon its reliability and factual accuracy. I'll take William Couper, local historian who worked for the Virginia Military Institute in the 20th century over the 19th century source that he casts significant doubt upon. If we have modern scholarship that says that old scholarship is unreliable, then we really shouldn't be totalling up the 19th century regurgitations and declaring things notable, let alone doing what this article currently does which is presenting as true something that modern scholarship has concluded to be false.
Uncle G (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eflex9ja[edit]

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

Non notable news media organisation, i searched very deeply, but nothing found special. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Nigeria. Skynxnex (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find anything beyond social media linked to Eflex9ja. I believe it fails to meet the basic notability criteria. Pichpich (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Non notable at all. Wonder when it was founded and no qualitative source to be inclusive on an Encyclopedia Otuọcha (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha@Pichpich@Skynxnex@Youknowwhoistheman

Please, i have added references to the page to validate my search. You can also check use the further readings for more information. The website is https://www.eflex9ja.com.ng you can visit and read more as well as search on google for other external links. Thank you all. Jayofpedia (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here, we always appreciate efforts. As it stands, the page fails WP:WEB and even our WP:GNG. you can read more on the welcome page to see the links for better editing or you click here. Thanks Otuọcha (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These references are no good. faqabout.me is self-published and we are looking for in-depth coverage in third-party sources, aruwaab9ja.com.ng is a blog (not reliable) and in any case, that link does not provide any coverage of eflex9ja, the link to Jassen Japhethnk's GitHub does not mention eflex9ja (and in any case, is self-published) and finally, the link to radiomhz.com does not provide any significant coverage but even worse, it shows a link to "Eflex9ja FM online live radio" but that link is broken. This is not even close to what we need to meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 1 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. Sandstein 08:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Leslie Arnold[edit]

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

Unremarkable crim. WP:NOTNEWS. TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tenuously. The crime itself might not be notable, but being a double murderer, escaping from prison, escaping to several different countries under a false name and being the subject of a cold case, then being the cause of coverage over a decade after he died? Depends on how much coverage on the case before 2023 can be found, but this seems decently notable, presuming there was coverage of the double murder and prison escape at the time in addition to the recent coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply two different minor news stories. Curious, yes. Notable, no.TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it has significant coverage from reliable sources over a long period of time then yes, it's notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is significance in the manner in which the subject was found to be in Australia and under the alias John Damon. DNA testing using Public systems, such as Ancestry.com, and authorities tapping into these systems is a very current and relevant/notable topic. Panamax76 (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came looking for an article after listening to a BBC radio programme that featured the case. [3]. We've also got the recent Guardian and CNN reports. It was reported luridly at the time e.g. [4] Sunday World-Herald October 12, 1958 page B-1 - 'Youth Kills Father, Mother to Get Own Way About Car. Hides Bodies in Back Yard Under Lilacs. Boy, 16 Told Kin Parents on Trip'. The prison escape and cold case follow-ups were also covered over the years. --Cavrdg (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The CNN article from May 2023 provided by Cavrdg indicates ongoing notability. I've also found this article from the Lincoln Journal Star (August 1992): "Escaped murderer gone 25 years now". This indicates there was ongoing public interest in the case, from the 1950s on. Toughpigs (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Omaha World Herald has an extensive multi-part series on this story. The way he was found in Australia, via DNA and Ancestry.com from unsuspecting relatives is significant, as covered by the BBC radio program "The Gift". This article can be greatly expanded upon. Panamax76 (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not buy any of the above. There is no ocontinuing coverage, meaning that the initial murders & subsquent going on the trot are not notable; the subsuquent covearge on his death are likewise simply ephemeral news stories. Television is of course a whirlpool of sensationalist trivia and I can understand how a television program might be made, altho how the thin gruel would furnish a 'mini-series' I cannot imagine. Just another good reason not to have a television, imo.TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's treat all the breaking coverage for the three separate incidents (the 2023 discovery, the murder and the initial prison escape) as irrelevant. Only counting interim coverage, we have:
- 2022 - (on escape) Back in the day, July 14, 1967; Leslie Arnold escapes from prison
- 2022 - (on murder) Back in the day, Oct. 11, 1958: Leslie Arnold confesses to killing parents and leads police to bodies
- 2015 - A look at prison escapees who got away with it
- 2022 - Band Kid or Budding Psychopath?: The Crimes of Leslie Arnold
- 2017 More coverage: The Mystery of Leslie Arnold
- 2017 1958 Omaha murder, prison escape story inspires new song by Lincoln band
There's a ton more. This is continuous coverage nearly 70 years after the murders occurred. This is clearly a notable case people remember. Also for searching purposes, he was almost always just referred to as "Leslie Arnold". If the page survives the page name should be changed to that - it's the clear common name. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheLongTone, you know television has existed for decades? You don't have to buy any of it but you do have to point to actual Wikipedia policies. The onus is on you. – The Grid (talk) 20:52, 1 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. Views are split between keeping outright or sending to draft. As I don't see strong views towards deleting the article outright, I consider a "no consensus" close to be the most appropriate. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Clowes[edit]

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

I don't think anybody would consider this unremarkable businessman sufficiently notable were it not for the fact that he is involved with a kick-the-ball outfit. This is not enough. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable person, [5], [6], [7], [8]. Loads online for him, take it you did no homework on him. Govvy (talk) 12:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed@Govvy, there are plenty of other Wikipedia articles for other football club owners which have the same or less information than this one. Examples being: Steve Lansdown of Bristol City, Ruben Gnanalingam of Queens Park Rangers, Dejphon Chansiri of Sheffield Wednesday, Kyril Louis-Dreyfus of Sundeland, Gino Pozzo of Watford. Are we suggesting that all of these people should also have their articles deleted?

Not only this, but surely being the owner of a large sporting organisation is a notable enough feat to deserve their own article?

Further to this he is a successful business man running a large construction company with some very notable projects within the United Kingdom, I also believe Clowes Developments should also have their own page very soon.

@TheLongTone David Clowes is clearly deserving of their own article based on other pages dedicated to other sporting owners with similar accomplishments. If you delete this page you are going against precedence set for other pages. Benwilliams1196 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing with the !vote, but please be aware that we don't base deletion arguments on the existence of other pages. The question is whether the subject is significantly treated in independent reliable secondary sources. Those are what the article will be built from. On the sourcing, the four added by Govvy are newspaper reports which are primary sources. Primary sources do not count towards notability. However, I would take the breadth of suchs sources as being an indicator that secondary sources are likely to exist too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Otherstuff I am aware that there are people who think that anything to do with kick-the-ball is notable; they are misguided. TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify for speedy keep, you should specify one of the speedy keep criteria per WP:SKCRIT. I don't think any of those apply. In particular, I think a reasonable understanding of the deletion rationale is that it does not meet GNG, so 1 doesn't apply. I'll also note that every source on the page is a primary source. As I already said, the breadth of coverage may still indicate notability, but this is not a clear GNG pass as it stands. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'comment. As explicitly stated in the nomination, this man would excite no interest whatsoever were it not for his involvement with a kick-the-ball business. All the 'he must be notable' cites above are to do with this. They establish that he is involved with Derby County. They DO NOT serve to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sirfurboy: Firstly, the first source I posted above isn't a newspaper, its the BBC! Next, the BBC is not a primary source, nor is the Daily Telegraph, nor is the other newspapers, newspapers do not count as primary sourcing. Also, there is nothing wrong with me saying speedy keep. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the BBC is a news web site not a paper. But it is still all primary sourcing. Please see WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Also WP:PRIMARY and especially note d, which itself also refers to WP:NEWSORG. These are reliable but primary sources. Are there any secondary sources about the subject? If not, what is the breadth of news coverage? Is it WP:SUSTAINED? Per SUSTAINED, where news coverage is sustained over a long period this is an indicator of notability. 2 of those you have provided are not just primary but also from the same day last June, the other two are from the same day this year and in the same paper (so they count as one in any case). As for saying "speedy", you can certainly say it, but if you wish it to be acted upon, you need to specify the speedy keep criterion engaged. Otherwise it is just a keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get real. They shoe that people are interested in Kick-the-ball. They do not establish the notability of this ordinary businessman. Are individual footballs notable now. btw? TheLongTone (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Despite the claim above, there is no demonstration - above or in the article - of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, which is what would be required for GNG. The sources above are all primary sources and the extent of the coverage is limited in time and focussed on one thing (the takeover of Derby FC). There is no presumption of notability and notability has not yet been demonstrated. Yet I expect that there is a case that this businessman is or soon will be notable. For instance, I think this: [9] is significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source. We need multiple sources to meet GNG but that is one that properly focusses on Clowes. The reason it is necessary to insist on secondary sources is that these are what provide us the information that allows us to create an article. The current article is mostly about the purchase of Derby FC because it is written around those primary sources, but secondary sources like this one will allow the article to be written on the person. I expect more secondary sources exist or will be written soon, and a decent article is possible when they are. The page creator has made a decent start with this page, and with some work this will be an encyclopaedic article. However its reliance on primary sources needs to be addressed. Deletion is not for clean-up, so keep would be acceptable here, if the article were tagged. However, the article is new and eligible for draftification. As such, that would be my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not an expert in sports, but I think the consensus has been that the majority owners of major teams are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niikura Parking Area[edit]

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

No indication of any notability for this run-of-the-mill highway parking area with 1 shop, toilets, and less than 100 parking spots. Fram (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Transportation, and Japan. Fram (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see why a highway rest area would be notable, we have loads of them around here. The rest of Category:Rest areas in Japan doesn't seem notable either. Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:MILL There's not enough coverage to prove general notability, and there are hundreds around the world. Maybe the first one ever in Japan, or the largest in Europe, or the truck stop that was the site of serial murders, or a historic rest stop built by Lyndon B. Johnson when he was state director of the National Youth Administration might be notable, but that's all I can think of. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drake–Kanye West feud[edit]

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

Do not delete, but rather as recommended, redirect to Rivalry. Concerns WP:TRIVIAL, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:GNG and WP:REFERENCE. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 15:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Skynxnex (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Doesn't seem helpful to redirect to the broadest possible article on the matter. Anyhow, keep, notable feud. I see no problems with the article unsolvable by normal editing. Mach61 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:TRIVIAL doesn't link anywhere relevant. Mach61 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah at first I intended to add to the Drake article under the feuds part but the information I found would have over expanded the page and I thought it would just be better off as an individual article. I was hesitant at first fearing it's irrelevant but later I saw there was numerous coverage on this and is actually notable for Wikipedia inclusion. I'm of the opinion it should be kept but I would love to hear your output on it. Best regards, Serrwinner (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep This seems to meet WP:N. Trivial to some of us, vital to others (including the authors of RS cited). Llajwa (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Havlín[edit]

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

One-time Olympics participant, Jakub Havlín lacks enough criteria that meets WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The closest thing is this news source on Tyden that seems to be a brief significant coverage (mentioned in the first paragraph); other sources I found were mostly limited to him taking part in bobsleigh tournaments (e.g. being listed/mentioned as a participant). I can't explain much, and he also never had medal record. This article should not be confused with the gunsliger of the same name. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh per nom. FromCzech (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manukau Cruising Club Rugby League Club[edit]

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

A painstakingly detailed article on an utterly non-notable club, which operated for one season in a low-level competition only. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, just match reports, padded with lots of speculation, information about the cruising club (but not the rugby club), and so on. Fram (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Rugby league, and New Zealand. Fram (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In a way it is an interesting article, but no way is it notable, so delete. Bduke (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Yuzhang Honors College[edit]

(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. It should be notable but that needs evidence. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. Owen× ☎ 12:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found two sources that may meet the requirement of GNG, one from the biography of the former president (as part of the biography series for some academicians of the Chinese Academy of Engineering), another from Journal of Sichuan Normal University (it's a different university and not affliated with Sichuan University, which this college belongs to)
大学之魂：中国工程院院士、四川大学校长谢和平 [The soul of the university - Xie Heping, Academician of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and President of Sichuan University]. 在川两院院士丛书 (in Chinese). 四川人民出版社. 2016. p. 110. ISBN 978-7-220-09824-6. Retrieved 2024-01-21.

"Wu Yuzhang College requires students to complete undergraduate courses within two and a half years, exchange abroad for one year, and then return to school to complete their graduation thesis. The school has been cultivating this type of top students for nearly ten years. Many of its graduates have been admitted to world-renowned universities such as Harvard and Yale to study for master's and doctoral degrees. Some students have published high-level publications during their undergraduate studies..."

Li, Wenxin; Chen, Wei. "Building Platforms and Mechanism Innovation for Talent Cultivation in Research-Oriented Comprehensive Universities" (PDF). Journal of Sichuan Normal University (Social Science Edition). Retrieved 21 January 2024.

"Sichuan University established Wu Yuzhang College as a platform for cultivating top innovative talents. In the past five years, students have published 6 SCI papers and 55 core journal papers, and won 4 international awards and 132 national awards. It can be seen that research-oriented universities have created more favorable growth conditions for the cultivation of top innovative talents through institutional and mechanism innovation..."--94rain ^Talk 09:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. The sources found in 94rain (talk · contribs)'s excellent research.
2. Tu, Shiwei 涂诗薇; Long, Yumei 龙玉梅 (2006-06-30). "首个荣誉学院川大挂牌成立" [The first honours college of Sichuan University was established]. Tianfu Morning Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-28. Retrieved 2024-01-28 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "昨（29）日下午，四川首个荣誉学院———吴玉章学院正式在四川大学挂牌成立，川大校长谢和平将出任吴玉章学院荣誉院长，他在挂牌仪式上介绍说，四川大学将从进入该校的学生中选拔出优秀者进入该学院学习。而学生则可享受自选专业的“优待”。 ... 此次吴玉章学院将把四川大学的创新班和联合班合并，学院性质为荣誉学院，管理权直接归属学校，与其他学院平行，... 学校将每年从全国报考四川大学的高分考生及保送生中通过考试选拔产生学院学生，每年招生人数约占学校招生总数的1.5%，学院规模总体不超过1000人。"
  From Google Translate: "Yesterday (29th) afternoon, Sichuan’s first honors college, Wu Yuzhang College, was officially established at Sichuan University. Xie Heping, president of Sichuan University, will serve as the honorary dean of Wu Yuzhang College. It was introduced at the listing ceremony that Sichuan University will select outstanding students from the students entering the school to study in the college. Students can enjoy "preferential treatment" in their chosen major. ... This time Wu Yuzhang College will merge the innovative classes and joint classes of Sichuan University. The college will be an honors college, with management rights directly vested in the school, parallel to other colleges. ... The school will select college students through examinations every year from high-scoring candidates and recommended students who apply for Sichuan University across the country. The annual enrollment accounts for about 1.5% of the school's total enrollment. The overall size of the college does not exceed 1,000 students."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wu Yuzhang Honors College (simplified Chinese: 吴玉章学院; traditional Chinese: 吳玉章學院) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per excellent comments above. Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Safo Boafo[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Ivory Coast. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. And the awards he won don't really add to notability. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of his jobs, accomplishments, or awards are notable. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulvi Mammadov[edit]

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

The facts are completely unsourced, and the information about being a World Champion is also incorrect: in some years mentioned as winning years, the competition was not held at all, and in others, this person is not among the winners. The accuracy of the remaining information has also not been substantiated. Overall, the topic does not meet the GNG. The article has been deleted on Azerbaijani Wikipedia as well. Surə ^🗯 13:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the AFD, reverted their edit. This might be like the rusty pole article. Toketaa^talk 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No supporting evidence of world championships. Dates and locations don't match up with major karate organizations and article was deleted on Azerbaijani WP. He is not ranked in the top 350 or so karateka in his division by the World Karate Federation, which seems unusual for someone who claims to have won a bronze medal in the last world championships. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Papaursa. Lethweimaster (talk) 00:20, 1 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 KCEB. ✗plicit 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPKN-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Could merge into KCEB as they share spectrum. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with KCEB: like most 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTVs, there's no significant coverage that could allow for standalone notability (nor anything that could lead to same), but being the channel-sharing host for the (older and slightly longer-established) KCEB makes this merger a logical alternative to deletion. This article is another technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year; even then, an eventual redirect to KCEB was proposed (the bulk nomination ultimately failed to attain any consensus, in no small part because the circumstances surrounding each article were not as 100%-identical as they might seem on the surface). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. Fails GNG, but there is enough primary to source a brief mention in the target. // Timothy :: talk 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vusal Abdullazade[edit]

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

Almost all of the facts are fake: the person has never been a World champion or an Azerbaijani champion. It is possible to see this from the list of winners of the mentioned competitions. Even the years and countries where the competitions were held are incorrect, in some indicated years no competition was held at all, and in some cases, it was not held in the mentioned country. Generally, there are almost no sources to proof any of the facts in the article and topic doesn't pass GNG. The article has been deleted on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, this is the discussion. Surə ^🗯 13:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant independent coverage and no evidence he won a major world championship. I checked several of the article's external links that go to "world" championships he supposedly won and could not find his name. The dates and locations of his championships don't match those of major organizations. Finally, the fact that his article was deleted on the Azerbaijani WP for lack of supporting evidence seems pretty convincing. Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with Azerbaijani media, but is this considered unreliable? The news story appears to confirm that he has won the championship seven times. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent COI vanity page. Subject does not meet WP:NKICK or WP:NMMA criteria, as well as does not have independent significant coverage. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petrine Olgeirsdottir[edit]

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

WP:SIGCOV failure. Previously prodded with a rationale that the Deaflympics is not an event that gets much media coverage. As a result, there are no independent news about Petrine Olgeirsdottir in her home country. The National Library archives yield 11 hits, all completely trivial. 10 of the 11 hits are random coverage of local children. The last hit is about the sign language rapper Signmark whom she showed up to watch. Of the 5 sources already in the article, all are WP:PRIMARY or WP:PASSING or both. Further googling yields hits about deaf futsal (primary, passing), [10] (primary, very short). This is more significant, but again primary. This and this article are about sign language interpretation and the subject undertaking a bachelor's degree, which is not something people become known for. There is a discussion worth having on the basis of WP:BIAS, but sports events don't really bestow automatic notability anymore, including the Olympics. Geschichte (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Disability, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Name popped up here, not sure if it's the same person [11], but it's trivial regardless. Nothing else I can find to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this NRK article on the sign language interpretation issues she's experiencing in her studies, similar to the other articles you listed. Bridget (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be the original article from which the Teknomers piece is translated. But would it confer notability upon a person? Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 19 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 12:37, 25 January 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. this is mainly an interview, fails WP:IS. I thought I would be able to find sources, if anyone does post sources, ping me (actual SIGCOV). BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 06:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has participated in Deaflympics which is equivalent of Olympics for deaf people. I understand that it might not be complying with WP:GNG if you look solely on her Deaflympic career. Abishe (talk) 02:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Observatory India[edit]

(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. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and India. Owen× ☎ 13:02, 18 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!} 07:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L3Harris Airline Academy[edit]

(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. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Aviation, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 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!} 07:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top Spin (ride)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. I could only find one review from an inadmissible personal blog, and the article is almost entirely WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks and Products. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:30, 18 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!} 07:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous Lollipops[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Damaged Goods (record label) but it may unbalance that article. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 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!} 07:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shout! Studios releases[edit]

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

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All lists of this nature have previously been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, the list goes on... --wooden superman 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. --wooden superman 16:05, 11 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!} 07:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. hinnk (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shout! Studios.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC) (Note: I DeproDed the page and mentioned then that a redirect should be considered)[reply]
That would imply that there would be a list of releases at the target though, which there shouldn't be. --wooden superman 09:33, 23 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!} 07:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. // Timothy :: talk 14:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Asunción[edit]

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

The scant information on the embassy building, which appears entirely unremarkable, has already been included in Paraguay–United States relations, of which this is a content fork. Biruitorul ^Talk 09:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another content fork of the bilateral relations article. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Paraguay, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG. There are several articles from reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the embassy (the building): ÚH 1, ÚH 2, ÚH 3, ÚH 4, ÚH 5, La Nación, Hoy. Pilaz (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging LibStar to see if the new sources found seem convincing. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United States, Quito. Pilaz (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The installation of an air-quality monitor on the roof of the embassy is not, I would submit, an indication of notability, but of the fact that not much happens in Paraguay. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind the history of the embassy building: this peer-reviewed article for the old embassy designed by architect Chloethiel Woodard Smith, this piece contextualizing the construction of the 1959 embassy La Nación, or this in-depth piece published in ABC Paraguay looking at the design of the new embassy. Pilaz (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pilaz – Kjerish (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  see WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @LibStar: your impression on the sources I dug up? Pilaz (talk) 12:37, 29 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!} 07:52, 18 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!} 07:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paraguay–United States relations. The discussion about the notability of the building above is beside the point, because the actual article is not at all about the building, but about Paraguay–United States relations, and therefore a WP:CFORK. Sandstein 08:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paraguay–United States relations. Sandstein is correct that the article is about the relations of the US and Paraguay. On its own, that wouldn't be a reason for Wikipedia not to have an article on the embassy, but there's essentially no information available on the embassy itself by reliable sources, which is very much a reason. Tserton (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. ✗plicit 14:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUSE-LD[edit]

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

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: No deletion rationale has been proposed. Let'srun (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A textbook LPTV with no meaningful or GNG-garnering history. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:27, 19 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!} 07:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: It has a longer history than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but with no significant coverage to actually demonstrate notability (and as this has since become an HC2/Innovate station, this situation is not going to change anytime soon), it would appear that this is just another remnant article from the lower "notability standards" of 2006. It's also a technical survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 13:54, 1 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! 07:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVMA-CD[edit]

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

Unable to find the level of WP:SIGCOV needed for this station to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Let'srun (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least for this case it had a past history of competitiveness as a satellite station, and has not been turned into a non-competitive subfarm yet. Nate • (chatter) 02:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:36, 18 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!} 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced by the standards of radio tv stations and notable. Llajwa (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was recently listed at AfD and then DRV where an immediate relist was permitted. Discussion can be found at User talk:Randykitty in two sections.

My basic issue is that A) we have no meaningful coverage B) I can't find much of anything to indicate that the editor-in-chief even exists (he shares a name with a world-renown economist which confuses things but I can't find anything at his school that lists him as existing). The folks I randomly looked for on the board don't exist at their home schools (and even if those are just typos, *that* seems troubling). In general, I don't think we have enough evidence to believe this is a real journal with actual peer review, let alone something that clears the our inclusion guidelines. The folks abstracting it and indexing it aren't evidence of notability per WP:ROUTINE if nothing else. It exists isn't a reason for us to have an article even for something as important as an academic journal. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Academic journals, Biology, and Technology. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again, for the seem reason as the per previous discussion. The EiC clearly exists and has published many papers e.g. [12], [13], [14] and personal incredulity is not an argument. Likewise that a 30-year journal has possibly gone to shit after being sold / reorganizing is not an argument against its notability either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was once something notable and isn't now, I'm fine with keeping it. Do you have sources to support that? I can't find any non-trivial coverage and none really came up in the last AfD or DRV. Hobit (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The prevalence of multiple people with unverifiable affiliations on the journal's editorial board is troubling. Its editor-in-chief, supposedly Xiaokai Yang of the University of Economics in Katowice (but with a Google Scholar profile listing only the more-famous XY's publications and with an email in Hainan), is not the only one with a more-famous namesake; others include Peter Marra, supposedly of the University of Vienna. There also seems to be some nexus among these names+affiliations and two other journals, Archives of Clinical Psychology and European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (despite the unrelatedness of these three topic names) for instance the Vienna Marra is on the editorial boards of both JCB and EJPR, as is the supposed Leonie Levin of TUM whose only evidence of existence is these boards and one publication each in JCB and ACP. While the editorial board of ACP looks cleaner, multiple supposed members of the editorial board of JCB have published there. For this reason I am not convinced that Headbomb's links to papers in one of these journals give evidence for the EiC having a legitimate affiliation. If this was once a legitimate journal, I am skeptical that it remains one, and if we cannot properly source an accurate description of its current state, perhaps the better outcome would be to not have an article on it. I don't mind having articles on bad journals if we can properly source and describe them, but we should not have articles that make no-longer-legitimate journals look still-legitimate for lack of sourcing of their current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, our article on European Journal for Philosophy of Religion does lament its fallen state, but without sources. Perhaps that article should also come under scrutiny. I am sympathetic to the goal of warning both journal authors and Wikipedia editors about a good-turned-bad journal but we can only do that with reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and David Eppstein, there isn't enough coverage to be able to summarize anything, without an ability to summarize there is an inability to create encyclopedic content, an article that is only justified by indexer data fails WP:NOTDIR, and is not an article, it's a listing, and we publish articles not listings. Fails WP:GNG, non-notable subject. As an organization (a group of people in charge of the for-profic academic publication) and a product (the publication) this would also need to pass WP:NCORP requirements which are stricter than GNG.—Alalch E. 18:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG, and the potential that this is a hijacked journal just makes it all the more clear why NJOURNALS is not an acceptable set of criteria.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have become a predatory journal based on the evidence and this discussion. I would rather delete this article than promote it as legitimate on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 10:13, 1 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 delete. Page was speedy deleted under G:11. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure)‎ CoconutOctopus talk 07:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dznrm[edit]

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

It doesn't seem like this musician and influencer meets notability guidelines yet, couldn't find any sigcov on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophical Society of New York[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, nothing outside of primaries found with a Google search Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the article from both DELSORT lists. It's not fiction. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find [source] that briefly mentions the society, but that about it. It doesn't seem to be notable. Cortador (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - NN breakaway group of a notable spiritual organization. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lankaran operation#Overthrow of Bolshevik power. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lankaran[edit]

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

Fails GNG, Unneeded DUP/CFORK of Lankaran operation#Overthrow of Bolshevik power.

There was certainly fighting in the area and the Russian civil war impacted all of Azerbaijan, including Lankaran, but I cannot find anything that is called the Battle of Lankaran.

Author also created Lankaran operation, I think this is an unneeded CFORK of this article, as it stands the main section of the article is a duplicate of Lankaran operation#Overthrow of Bolshevik power with the background and conclusion points covered in other areas of the article.

Article is based on a single source,

Süleymanov, Mehman (1998). Azərbacan Ordusu (1918–1920). Baku: hərbi Nəşriyyatı.

I can find no information on the publisher other than it is the ""Military Publishing House" of the Ministry of Defense and is described as "one of the ideological branches"."[15]. Based on this I think this fails WP:IS.

Lankaran operation has significant problems of its own, and is based on the single source, but it summarizes the period in Lankaran operation#Overthrow of Bolshevik power. No objection to a redirect to this target. The content is already in this target and there is nothing else for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 04:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Azerbaijan, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lankaran Operation per nom. Nominator makes strong case. Llajwa (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secuestro[edit]

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only attempt at a notability claim here is that it won awards from student film competitions -- but our notability tests for films only care about film awards that can be reliably sourced as significant, and don't just indiscriminately accept every single film award that exists. Otherwise, this is written rather more like an advertisement than a proper encyclopedia article, and isn't citing any reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for anything else either. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Dominican Republic, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim to notability. Llajwa (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanul Science Museum[edit]

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

Can't find any sources about this museum in either Korean or English. Idk what the Korean name for it is, but I've tried a number of alt spellings and have nothing toobigtokale (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable. The "Official site" is an archive link that redirects to a blog. The blog suggests that the Korean name is "한얼테마박물관" (machine translation says "Haneol Theme Museum"), which appears to be in Yeoju, not Seoul as the article claims. [16]. So who knows if "한얼테마박물관" is even the actual subject of this article; in any case it does not appear to be notable. Jfire (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step-by-Step Instruction[edit]

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

Doesn't receive secondary, reliable coverage, and WP:GNG is not met. This page was previously BLAR'd into the general disambiguation for Instruction, but nothing at the disambiguation page would be referred to by this title. Restoring contents, and bringing to AfD. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability. Based on the article, this is a description of an ordinary cognitive act with no public discussion of same. Llajwa (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of the verified oldest people. The only "keep" argument is that "no one has bothered to check for socures.... again". Maybe, but because that "keep" proponent has also not bothered to search for sources, or at least to cite any, their view is disregarded. The redirect ATD is unopposed. Sandstein 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Eliza Williams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Notable only for having been the oldest known person for 11 months. Died in 1997; outcome of second AFD in ~~2017~~ 2018 was to delete. My speedy nomination db-g4 (even fewer sources than the 2017 version) was declined by an admin in favour of redirect to List of the verified oldest people, but the redirect was reverted 6 days later. Wikishovel (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Wikishovel (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find coverage about this person. I don't see how being the oldest person for 11 months is notable. Bio information here is minimal. Oaktree b (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or redirect is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the verified oldest people, where she is already listed. I was the admin who declined the G4 nomination, as the article changed too much since the previous AfD. Thank you for bringing this here, Wikishovel! I agree that the article fails NBIO, but see no reason to eliminate it as a redirect. Persistent attempts to ressurect it as a standalone article can be reverted with a reference to this AfD. Or if needed, the redir can be page-protected until someone establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be fine by me. Wikishovel (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomianter just has to do a quick google search and I'm sure he'll find plenty of sources that are reliable article should be kept as the reason why it's a stub is cause no one has bothered to check for socures.... again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 02:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You dont even have the date of the last afd correct nor have you seemed to have checked if there are socures for her furthermore just case she died in 1997 doesn't mean she isn't notable? Wwew345t (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo corrected in nomination thanks. And yes, I made a WP:BEFORE search before nominating, and couldn't find better sourcing than what's here already. If you can find better sources that I'd missed, I'd be grateful. Wikishovel (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. We have to get to a consensus on whether being the oldest person alive is notable. There tends to be coverage in popular media. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kumar (IPS)[edit]

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

Looks like a WP:BIO1E. Nothing notable except the one event. All the other sources are from non-WP:SIGCOV sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and West Bengal. UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Tagging @Seawolf35:, who reviewed, I would make two points on this. 1. From my side, I don't think being a director of the state police unit is the only notability that counts. He is also a former police commissioner of Kolkata and was involved in Saradha Group financial scandal. So, that also counts. 2. Even if it looks notable on 1E, his successors like Anuj Sharma and Rajesh Kumar also considered as 1E (only commissioner of Kolkata). These persons also don't provide significant coverage references. So they should also tagged as deleted.
Since creating this page, I prefer to avoid voting. --CSMention269 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I reviewed so I am involved. But aside from the 1E notability, he also seems to be notable for his appointment, his appointment was among controversy, see [17], and [18] and [19]. There are some more sources, but he is notable for more than the 1E alone. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:09, 23 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)} 02:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it seems that his biggest claim to notability is the accusation against him. If that is true, it should be at least mentioned in the lede. Llajwa (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Heads of state police forces (which are generally pretty big) in Indian states should clearly be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point us to a notability policy that indicates this broad conclusion? - UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an informed opinion, based on the fact that nobody in such a position in a western country would ever be deleted (and is therefore covered by WP:BIAS). I can also point you to the sadly much overlooked WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I refute this. Would you create Patrick J. Callahan who is the New Jersey State Police Superintendent purely based on being in that role? That's the equivalence you are making, and it is not held up by policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This exact same point has been raised before by American editors who don't understand how policing works in other countries, but no, I'm not making that equivalence at all. State police in India carry out all policing in the state. State police in the USA only have a very limited role, with local police departments carrying out most policing. You need to compare the size of the two forces (2,800 in NJ against 79,000 in West Bengal, and that's one of the smaller Indian state police forces), then you'd realise just what a lack of equivalence this really is. A closer equivalent would be the Chief of the NYPD, but more than doubled! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With West Bengal having a population of 10x that of NJ, that's only a difference of less than 3x the size per capita. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And still - there's no policy basis for your argument. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is your point? I'm talking about the size of the force the man heads, not the relative population of the two states. Somebody who heads a police force 79,000 strong which is responsible for all the policing in a state with a population of 91 million is clearly a notable player in the world. That is just WP:COMMONSENSE, as I said. In the real world, not wikiworld. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there are plenty of state police forces in the US that are of the size of that of West Bengal. The heads of those organizations do not have articles, unless they are otherwise notable. A prime example is Steven C. McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. The department has an article, but the director doesn't. I'd wager the department is larger than the West Bengal police force, as it includes more than just police. Size of the department they run isn't a notability factor. WP:COMMONSENSE is just a wrapper to WP:IAR, the anti-policy. So I'll ask again, do you have a policy basis for your keep !vote? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that there are plenty of state police forces in the US that are of the size of that of West Bengal. What!? No, there really aren't! Now you really are joking. The NYPD, with 36,000 officers, is by far the largest law enforcement agency in the United States. The Texas Highway Patrol is 2,800 strong (and I'm damn sure the TDPS doesn't have an additional 76,000 people on top of that, or even close!). The California Highway Patrol, which provides state policing for the most populous state in the USA, has 7,000 officers. You do know IAR is a policy, right? Whether you like it or not. I'm sorry that you don't think it's common sense that an officer who heads an agency this size is notable, IAR or not, but I must agree to disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp, I agree with you, but not all persons who holds such positions is notable. For instance, Surajit Kar Purkayastha (predeccesor of Kumar as CP, Kolkata) has hold such post. But his successor, i.e. Virenda K. is not quite notable. Manoj Malaviya counts as notable as grandson of Madan Mohan Malaviya. However it would be appreciated if you answer @UtherSRG's question. CSMention269 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is notable as a relative of someone else. But these people are all notable because of the post they held. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Necrothesp, agree with you, but can you or anyone clarify if he is just an acting DGP or full time DGP? (Full time DGP requires approval from UPSC, I guess). If he is acting, he can not be notable based on that appointment. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User4edits, according to their official website, it stated that he is serving as principal secretary to IT department holding the charge of DGP West Bengal. I remember last time when Manoj Malaviya was appointed as acting DGP, before confirming by UPSC after few months as permanent DGP of the state. Though no acting word is mentioned in their website (as 24/01/2024 per website), some media stated he took charge as acting DGP on the time of his appointment. CSMention269 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSMention269, I do not know of any full-time DGP of even small states such as Goa being the Principal Secy to IT Department; as you said he is holding the charge of DGP, and therefore is only acting DGP, and therefore I would vote for:

Draftify until he is appointed as a full time DGP.

User4edits (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual has been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These events include his appointment as DGP of West Bengal (The Hindu, The Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, Telegraph India, etc.) the Saradha chit-fund affair (The Quint, The Indian Express 1 2 3, NDTV 1 2 3, Hindustan Times 1 2, The Hindu etc.), and generally his role as Calcutta Police Comissioner (The Indian Express, NDTV, The Quint, The Week, etc.). He clearly passes WP:NBASIC owing to these sources, and this pretty clearly isn't a WP:1E situation. Some complaints were made about the current state of the article at the time of the nomination, but deletion isn't cleanup and the immediate presence or citation of specific sources in an article are not required provided that notability-indicating sources merely exist (which they do). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:THREE: Can you specify which 3 references pass WP:SIRS? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If you click through all of them, or conduct a brief online search, there's certainly more than three. Here are three examples for ya.
Bhattacharya, Ravik (20 September 2019). "Explained: Who is Rajeev Kumar, Saradha-linked IPS officer who is now CBI's most wanted?". The Indian Express.
This source dedicates ~650 words to Kumar. The source describes a general overview of his career, beginning with him joining the IPS in 1989 and his appointment to head the Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate in 2012. It then goes on to describe his involvement with investigating the Saradha chit fund scam, his appointment to the head of the Kolkata police comissioner, with a brief summary over his removal by the elections commission and his removal afterwards. It also describes some of his educational background ("BE in computer science from the University of Roorkee") and notes some of the posts he held as a policeman. (Another profile on Kumar from the same author was published after his recent appointment in West Bengal. I don't want to count this as a second of three sources, but there's more information there if you'd like to take a look.)

"Controversial IPS Officer Rajeev Kumar Is Bengal's New Director General Of Police". Press Trust of India. 27 December 2023.
This source, from the Press Trust of India (link above via republisher NDTV) dedicates ~800 words to this individual. The article describes Kumar's job, notes his relationship with Mamata Banerjee and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, and provides a thorough summary of his career through that point. The article is particularly thorough for the parts of his career beginning in 2011 and ending in 2019, and notes his appointment to the head of West Bengal's police forces at around the time of his date.

Chaudhuri, Monalisa (28 December 2023). "West Bengal: Rajeev Kumar gets DGP charge on Manoj Malviya's retirement". The Telegraph.
This article, from The Telegraph, was written shortly after the appointment to a post in West Bengal. The article, which is about 500 words, provides a brief overview of the positions that he has held, both before and after the chit fund scam, as well as some details on the appointment itself.

There are of course many, many other sources that could be used here to satisfy SIGCOV, and this should not be taken as an exhaustive list. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:04, 3 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 Saratoga Springs, New York#Arts and culture. ✗plicit 02:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horses Saratoga Style[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No references, and one hit on Google News from 2013. Uhooep (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Animal, Events, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the arts and culture section of the Saratoga Springs article. The one primary source used here is enough for a one-line mention of the thing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. I saw them, I enjoyed it, I took the pictures. It's not worth a whole Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saratoga, Springs and link there from CowParade#North_America where this is mentioned. Star Mississippi 02:18, 1 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. Sandstein 20:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Storaasli[edit]

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

Article reads like a resume and appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Links currently on page appear to all point to personal webpages, are dead links, and/or are his published papers. Conducted WP:BEFORE and could not find any coverage of significance. Rehsarb (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Computing. Rehsarb (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS record perhaps not spectacular in this highly cited field, but he has worked in areas of the private sector.where he may not have published much. Passes Prof and GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - It does indeed read like a resume. Author Olaftn is possibly Olaf Storaasli himself. He once worked at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tenneesse= Olaf tn. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 11 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!} 00:24, 18 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)} 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ I'm not seeing WP:PROF or the GNG met. Hobit (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- After the cleanup I'm much less sure. I don't think the GNG is met (at least I'm not seeing independent, reliable coverage) but I do think might meet WP:ACADEMIC #1. Hobit (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that I've cleaned up this article a bit and removed some of the fluff, I do see WP:PROF in the citation rate and GNG in the impact of the subject's work in high-performance computing, same as Xxanthippe. Qflib (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Eurasian Studies[edit]

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

No independent, in depth sources found. Note that due to the close connection of the topic to the Turkish government, sources that are not independent of the latter (including state media like Anadolu Agency) cannot be counted for notability. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Armenia and Turkey. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr/Ms. Thank you for openening the same discussion almost 4 years later. The discussion 4 years, with the participation of other individuals was closed and enough resources were decided to be present. The article does have already have independent sources, Balkan Günlüğü, Robert Schuman Center, World Review of Political Economy, Istituto Affari Internazionali, etc. Please do consult (again) the references part. As it can be seen (again) there are multiple sources, from multiple countries. It is also interesting the sources such Istituto Affari Internazionali, Robert Schuman Center are not considered as in depth. Tetulun (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning "Balkan Günlüğü," this news outlet is recognized within various Balkan communities for its independent reporting. Like many diaspora-driven media organizations, including those in Greek and Armenian communities, "Balkan Günlüğü" is valued for its diverse perspectives. It’s important for Wikipedia to represent such sources accurately, reflecting their significance in their respective communities.
The mention of AVİM in the news coverage warrants a nuanced approach. The extent and context of AVİM’s inclusion in the news are relevant factors. Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines caution against bias or subjective judgment in evaluating source significance. My observations suggest a recurring pattern in the treatment of Turkish think tank entries, particularly AVİM, which could be perceived as targeted or biased.'
Regarding the references to Robert Schuman and Istituto Affari Internazionali: while it's true that working papers and opinion pieces require careful consideration for reliability, these institutions are generally respected in their fields. Their analyses, including those divergent from AVİM's views, contribute to a comprehensive understanding of issues like far-right movements and women's rights, topics AVİM has addressed.
The inclusion of Istituto Affari Internazionali as a source should be viewed in the context of its publication history and relevance. Its decision to republish content from Hürriyet Daily News, a well-regarded international news source, underscores the value of the content rather than detracts from its credibility.
The reference to JSTOR highlights a misunderstanding. JSTOR is a digital library hosting academic journals; it doesn't cite sources but provides access to articles that do. In scholarly discourse, citations of organizations like AVİM are commonplace, whether for support or critique, contributing to factual and comprehensive academic discussions.
The practice of citing think tanks and grey literature is a standard academic convention, serving to enrich discussions with diverse viewpoints and specialized knowledge.
Comparisons between AVİM and ASAM should be approached with caution to avoid unfounded associations. It’s crucial for Wikipedia discussions to remain objective and free from personal biases or assumptions about contributors' intentions.

Tetulun (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the list of references by including three new sources, each offering news relevant to our discussion. These sources are:

1) An Index from the University of Barcelona, a respected academic institution renowned for its contributions to scholarly research.

2) A news piece from the Eurasia Center at John von Neumann University (Hungarian university) , which is noted for its academic focus on Eurasian studies.

3) A news item from Georgian news organization, the Accent News. Tetulun (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced the article by introducing a dedicated section on the Center's various activities (Projects). Additionally, enriched the article's verifiability by incorporating three new references, from Middle East Technical University, WorldCat, and Google Books. Tetulun (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Buidhe
https://balkangunlugu.com.tr/tuerkiyenin-dueuence-kurulular-ankarada-topland/	?	?	Passing mention in a list of think tanks	✘ No
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/72461/RSC%202021_70.pdf?sequence=1 "Robert Schuman Center"		? Working papers are not always RS	No results for "AVIM", "ASAM", "Eurasian Studies", or other monikers for the article topic	✘ No
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.11.4.0533			Cites AVIM as a source... once.	✘ No
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/teoman-ertugrul-tulun/the-steady-rise-of-the-far-right-in-sweden-136813 (the one listed as "Istituto Affari Internazionali")	?	Opinion pieces are not RS	?	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230921084636/https://miar.ub.edu/issn/1306-9136	?		database entry, no significant coverage	✘ No
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0JyhRP6te3sEcAA4Y2Cb3PNoKGvTJ7waQmPxN61UTymZtATK9poigPGvW2MyBwGdFl&id=100064101942956&mibextid=Nif5oz	Facebook post about the source's collaboration with the think tank, equivalent to a press release	?	?	✘ No
https://accentnews.ge/en/article/104978-viktor-qipianma-evraziis-kvlevebis-centrtan-avim	No intellectual independence, looks like reprint of a press release	?	no in depth discussion of AVIM as required by WP:NORG	✘ 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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this discussion needs more than 2 editors taking part in it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and source eval above, fails GNG and NORG. Sources are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly an d indepth // Timothy :: talk 02:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added three new sources from Agos Newspaper, Euronews, Kıbrıs Postası (Cyprus Mirror), Organization of Turkic States. Tetulun (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source table sums it up, just not a notable institution. I can't find any sourcing that would !keep the article either Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does the table sum up that it is not a notable institution?. The table in itself, the person who created the table in itself has him/herself created the table based it on opinions. For example argues that Hürriyet Daily News or Accent News does not have intellectual independence? Based on what argument? Another example is Robert Schuman. Robert Schuman in itself is an important institution. Then the individual questions Working paper aspect, yet this is not questioned in other wikipedia articles? Furthermore the article contains 29 sources. Tetulun (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. Sources don't meet WP:SIGCOV as noted above. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The policy-based consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failatu Abdul-Razak[edit]

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

Appears to be notable for only one thing (WP:BLP1E), which is attempting to break the world record, but she didn't manage to do that. The rest of the article is also promotional in tone. ... discospinster _talk 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct; the tone of the article is promotional. A complete overhaul is necessary. Instead of deleting it, I suggest we undertake a comprehensive revision to address the promotional aspects and improve its overall quality. Ihikky (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Looks like he just recently broke records. Article is certainly promotional + refspam, so cleanup is needed. But I think recent events since the nomination help tip it over the edge. TLA (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says that she "appears to have broken the record", and they will send the evidence to Guinness World Records. Also, Guinness World Records is no longer an example of notability on its own, since it now allows anyone to create a world record for themselves for promotional purposes. ... discospinster _talk 17:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- bkeep article and allow for improvement in tone.CoachAni (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC) — CoachAni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article for further improvements Ruby D-Brown (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very good Asamoah Daniel Kwame Oware (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although except for nom there are only "keep" arguments, they are weaker than the nomination statement and counter-argument. I do not see consensus for "delete" so I am relisting in hopes of more in-depth discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete or normal delete as irredeemably promotional. "Many orphans have received food from Faila and her colleagues at their restaurant, bringing happiness and smiles to their faces, all thanks to the non-profit". Any article written along these lines needs WP:TNT and rewriting from scratch by uninvolved editors. Sandstein 20:32, 1 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 Karaikudi#Education. Unopposed. Sandstein 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMSV. Hr. Sec School[edit]

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

Unreferenced since creation. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The school is in the centre of Karaikudi and claims to be established in 1913. Age doesn't necessarily equate with notability but could be an indicator. Reserving giving an opinion until I've made a thorough search for sources, but at minimum suggest a redirect to Karaikudi#Education. Although not currently mentioned there I think it probably should be. Rupples (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karaikudi#Education as an AtD. I've noted it there in connection with the sourced notable alumni. Searches found little of note; falls well short of coverage needed for GNG/NORG. Rupples (talk) 07:20, 21 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)} 02:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andhra University. Unopposed. Sandstein 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajah R.S.R.K. Ranga Rao College[edit]

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

Spammy article unreferenced since creation. No evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andhra University since there is an affiliation ([20]). Couldn't find GNG-level sources for this college as an individual entity. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andhra University as above. Would be worth checking for other affiliated colleges to see if they have spammy/promotional pages like this as well. The creator has made a number of articles of this variety. Kazamzam (talk) 20:42, 30 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)} 02:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 20:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Staunton[edit]

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

~~I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - collaboration with John Prine, Rick Epping and Brendan Gleeson would seem to meet #6 on WP:MUSICBIO? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Bastun, it might if we can find refs for it, there aren't at the moment. Thanks for looking at this, not an area I am that familiar with! Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I accept that the person is established as a musician, and has worked with serious players, but I'm not 100% convinced that this is enough, there's a touch of notability-by-association. But if referenced for the current content, I'd be OK, I'd rather have them in and build up the article if they qualify at all. Some creators really do need to be clearer on the "why notable" point. SeoR (talk) 15:23, 23 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)} 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to be part of the traditional music scene; not an extensive coverage [ https://www.independent.ie/regionals/dublin/fingal/best-of-irish-music-tour/27784079.html], [21]. These are better [22], [23], [24]. Covered in a public radio piece [25] I'd work some of these into the article if I was writing it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per convincing comments above. Thanks, everyone. Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In all honesty, after my own WP:BEFORE, and while I am not minded to recommend deletion, I also can't advocate for a keep. Many of the sources that are available (including those listed by Oaktree b above) are largely trivial passing mentions. The only sources that I can find, which deal with the subject as a primary topic, are the same WP:INTERVIEWs we have in the article. Neither meeting the expectation of WP:IS. The regional news articles, which include the subject in the title and seem to offer a bit more (like "Mary Staunton brings top trad to the stage" (2010) Mayo Advertiser) are, in effect, ROTM gig announcements. Not in-depth/independent/biographical coverage. The (one-off?) collaboration with Prine/Gleeson/Epping doesn't meet my understanding of WP:MUSICBIO#C6 (musicians play on each other's albums all the time - it does not make them an "ensemble" in the meaning given in WP:BAND). "She once collaborated with someone famous" is, I note, the first example given in WP:INHERITED. And, as has been noted by Boleyn, the related assertion/text ~~isn't~~ wasn't supported by a verifiable/independent source either. Anyway, even though it seems like the article is unlikely to be deleted (and I'm not necessarily arguing that it should), as noted by others contributing here, the sources/etc are a little on the "weak" side. To the extent that, if kept, I do not know how that "WP:PRIMARY" tag can be removed. Or how (absent independent/reliable/verifiable sources) we can expand the article beyond the few sentences we have... Guliolopez (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thunder (band). Sourced content can be merged from the history if desired and supported by editorial consensus. Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Höglund[edit]

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

There are no sources cited and from my searching that I did last night, I was not able to find enough sources for Höglund's bio to meet WP:GNG. However, I would encourage Swedish users (or anyone, really) to find sources as the article claims he has at least a shred of notability. ❤History Theorist❤ 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ❤History Theorist❤ 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: all I can find are about a politician with the same name [26] who looks too young to be this person Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There seems to have been a couple of mid-sized articles about Höglund and Thunder in newspapers like Aftonbladet and Arbetet Nyheterna in February 1995, but I can't access them without going to a university with access to the newspaper database of the Royal Library of Sweden, only see short snippets. Is there anyone who could more easily see the contents? (Also found some shorter pieces and this article, but I'm not sure they contribute towards notability at all – I'd be more interested in the articles I can't access.) /Julle (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if Arbitet Nyheterna is referring to the musician or the politician of the same name as mentioned in Oaktree b's comment. It would seem a bit strange for the musician to be mentioned there unless he has really strong political views. From reading your comment more closely, it does seem that AN is talking about the musician. Unfortunately I'm an American user so it would be a pain for me to fly to Sweden and attempt to read the Swedish sources. I could see Aftonbladet carrying information about him, but I don't know how much weight tabloids carry in notability. I'll have to look that up. That said, that short article looks interesting, if only I could read Swedish. ❤History Theorist❤ 20:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made reasonably sure they refer to the right Höglund before posting, yes. (: Arbetet was a normal newspaper – most Swedish newspapers have some sort of political affiliation, but that doesn't mean they have a political focus. Aftonbladet is the most read newspaper in Sweden. Whether it's a good source might depend on the context; in an article like this, I wouldn't hesitate to use it, and I definitely think it would help point towards notability. Assuming the articles are relevant, which I can't judge without reading them – I mentioned it hoping someone who with easier access the archive would have a chance to glance at them. /Julle (talk) 21:52, 18 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)} 02:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thunder. Notability is not inherited - his notability is entirely in context of the band. Llajwa (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the admin who makes the final call in AfD discussions, but I would not oppose a merge. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thunder: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. No 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. Nothing properly sourced for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 15:29, 1 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. The one "weak keep" actually makes a case for deletion ("inadequate sourcing"). Sandstein 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNLA-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found some coverage in [[27]]. Let'srun (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna be an odd one here. KNLA and KNET go together; they channel share and have been associated for 20+ years. There is one other article on them, "Success Story: Low-Power Target on Hispanics - World TV's Four Outlets Play to Central Americans in Los Angeles Market" (TelevisionWeek 4/28/03), but it provides little useful content other than to say KNET was religious and KNLA was home shopping. The programming on these stations now is not likely to stay: its owner is selling it to Daystar in a deal filed just last week. Daystar would probably replace all the existing programming on this mux. Six months from now, there'd be an obvious redirect target, the Daystar station list. Right now, I'm not sure. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Sammi Brie: So, if it does go to Daystar, KOCE-TV doesn't have to air it anymore, freeing up one of its subchannels for other programming. That could end the conflict between Daystar and KOCE... Interesting. Mer764Wiki (talk) 11:17, 12 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!} 23:19, 17 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)} 02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - inadequate sourcing, but the station’s history is fascinating and prima facie notable. Llajwa (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, fails GNG and NCORP. Source in the article is primary and found in BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 02:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of blade materials[edit]

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

Information is trivial and it's set up to collect trivial information. Some of the info is LEAD is not trivial but there's no sourcing. The only sources that talk about this as a group are not reliable; it's mostly based on self-published work (not RS) and company info sheets (which have info about individual materials but not the group as a whole). I'm not saying it's not a notable topic because it could be, but I don't think there's anything currently on this page that meets our criteria for inclusion. I tried to make edits but I felt like I was just removing things because there weren't sources I felt like I could mine. This is my first time submitting an AfD so please correct me if I'm doing it wrong. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not for clean up. Skyerise (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been using this article for reference while shopping for pocket knives for my own use. I have found it accurate and useful. I suppose it may be too trivial for knife makers, but not for consumers. David R. Ingham (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list appears a useful summary although it might be better classified as part of a series of "alloys good for this type of application" articles. I'd be a little uncomfortable if it could be demonstrated that Wp was being subverted to be a resource for "survivalists" etc., but at the same time feel it's wrong to delete information if accurate. MarkMLl (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is important, though I agree that sourcing could be a lot better. There are TV shows on this topic, so I am sure there will be paper or glowing screen references available too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OHSAA Southwest Region athletic conferences#Greater Catholic League. ✗plicit 02:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Greater Catholic League[edit]

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

A non-notable topic, that has been unreferenced forever. Written like an advert as well. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sports, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Since I haven't seen any, I'm going to assume that it's unlikely there is any SIGCOV of the subject outside of routine local coverage. It's an intradiocesan youth sports league, so there's no presumed notability. If anything is salvageable, it should be merged to articles on the schools. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OHSAA Southwest Region athletic conferences#Greater Catholic League. Very little significant coverage exists. This is an appropriate target as (per that article) The [Greater Catholic League] was restructured in 2013, as the Girls' Greater Catholic League was merged into the conference. The proposed target has a list of the Girls' schools in the league. Frank Anchor 13:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per FrankAnchor. Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a standalone subject. Let'srun (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Frank Anchor. Not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. There's really nothing but ROUTINE.12:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

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