Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 28	March 30 >

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 keep‎. I see a consensus to now Keep this article given the improvements made. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Congress[edit]

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

Struggling to find anything of any substance in news sources/independent sources about this organization. I added 'notability' and 'primary sources' tags 9 years ago and they were removed without addressing the problems. My attention was drawn back to it today when an IP editor added a press release. Time for the article to go, in my opinion, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is kind of bad but the organization is notable. There’s a book here, an article here, as well as some in-depth coverage in a book about college students’ lives here. The subject (if not the article) passes GNG. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few citations to the article Mrfoogles (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the suitable WP:THREE that were provided and now added by Mrfoogles. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the cited references already in the article. The was a poorly thought through nomination. Additionally, there are other sources in google books, so it's clear WP:BEFORE was either not done or incompetently done.4meter4 (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Vadim[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Fails WP:GNG. Yours6700 (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reformatted this incorrectly formatted nomination so that it would display properly. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and France. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly does not meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.244.122 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because her only claim to fame is inherited from her family, and ordinarily that is not enough for assistant directors and that ilk. I don't see signficant coverage in reliable sources, but please, ping me if you find anything and add it to the page. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. She's worked on lots of notable films as an assistant director, but generally assistant directors aren't notable, no matter the body of work, because its a secondary production role.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This is confusing as the subject has won championships but I guess, given the comments, the tournaments aren't notable enough in themselves to meet WP:NTENNIS standards. If an editor would like to continue to work on the article in Draft space (in case of TOOSOON), contact me or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marat Sharipov[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Being a highly ranked Russian tennis player doesn't inherently mean notability as has been mentioned in the argument against PROD. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is the winner of thirteen ITF tournaments, five in singles!
He is among the top-10 Russian men's singles tennis players!
Two-time champion of Russia in doubles (2022, 2023) [1].

Zboris (talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has any of that got to do with WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two-time champion of Russia in doubles (2022, 2023)!!! Zboris (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing really notable here. Winning minor-minor league events against a lot of teenagers is not notable. If he steps up to the minor league Challenger level tour and wins an event or two, then we can take a re-look. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC, WP:NTENNIS, and WP:SIGCOV. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. If he starts winning some tournaments in a higher league, or sets some sort of recognized Tennis record as described in WP:NTENNIS it can always be recreated.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Barton[edit]

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

Not certain I see notability here. I can find some coverage, mostly from a publication called Dragzine which isn't used much on Wikipedia and I don't know the reliability of it. Doesn't seem like much of use beyond that. Acting career is small time, doesn't seem like there's anything to go on there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Motorsport, and Georgia (U.S. state). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This subject does not appear to meet notability standards. Very little coverage online, minor acting career, etc. Agreed with flag above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.244.122 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Very obviously non-notable subject, no claim to significance and no corresponding sources. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as per above. MaskedSinger (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP with zero WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP. No notable coverage. No WP:RS. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. It's also an unverified WP:BLP article.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Branch Area Career Center[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Article is strongly promotional, including phone and fax (!) numbers. AusLondonder (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Michigan. AusLondonder (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to the RESA that is associated with it (sorry, it's not known to me which RESA that is) or Delete. Schools like this provide facilities for member schools to be able to award vocational diplomas to their students; they are not strictly speaking high schools on their own. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are arguing for a Merge or Redirect, please provide a link to the target article you are considering.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't exist. So you can consider my !vote above to be Delete 4.37.252.50 (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Because it's a promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GQO (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Because it's clearly a promotion

(GQO (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as it stands WP:PROMO applies here. LibStar (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No consensus to delete. A decision whether to merge or not can be made editorially on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 00:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Garmadon[edit]

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

At first glance, yeah the article looks quote good, but its sources at reception relies mostly on Movie web? and their sources are only a passing mentions from film reviews? The sources that were brought on previous afd discussion were also passing mentions, except this [2], but looks trivial. Meanwhile, in the influence section, it was sourced by weird source like Brick Fanatics and Block Fanatics except collider; thou they only discussed about its design but not as a character so this doesn't count as sigcov. BEFORE shows nothing but film reviews. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Without commenting on whether or not he is notable, the article appears to clearly fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as all the reception is either unreliable or based on a primary source. If that is removed as it likely should be, there is no clear significance to the character that has been established. I am open to changing my view to keep if the article is cleaned up and reliable, significant coverage is shown. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the sourcing exists, this is the protagonist of a fifteen-season television series that began in 2011 and an animated featured film, but heavily rewrite, copyedit, like this article is awfully written, yikes. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A heavy rewrite would need third party reliable sources though. Do we have that? Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Most of the reception seems to be on the relationship between father and son in Lloyd and Garmadon, but the sourcing exists. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rolling stone and Paste are the only reliable here, but they are all trivial. "The leader of the team is the creatively named Green Ninja, who is actually teenager Lloyd Garmadon, son of Lord Garmadon". "Green Ninja is beloved. But, twist! Everyone in the city knows that Lloyd is Garmadon’s kid" so AwEsomE. I don't think that's a WP:SIGCOV. And, most of the sources were from films + Lloyd were just passing mentions. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some more from a Google. [12] [13] [14] I am sure there are more, given just how many years Ninjago has been going, so I think WP:ARTN applies. Does this article suck? Yes. Is there enough sourcing to warrant a rewrite? I say yes. There should be more refs included on the merch too, not just the reception. 91.219.238.98 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the sources were just about the actor's role in the films. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per @Zxcvbnm. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 91.219.238.98. Blubewwy (talk) 01:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with Zxcvbnm that the sourcing just isn't there. All of the sources that have been linked either consist of passing coverage or don't seem like RSes. ― novov (t c) 06:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a lack of better words, this article is pretty terribly written but secondary covering does exist as demonstrated by 91.219.238.98 and I'll probably do my own dive into sources when I have more time to do so. I will also add that most of the sources brought up don't seem to have an established consensus on their reliability. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't look "terribly written" (The author could be offended by this). It's actually quite good, but the thing is the sources, which I disagree with. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While the Keep arguments were weak, we do not delete a page based on one contested !vote. Owen× ☎ 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Fields (Indian festival)[edit]

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

non-notable, no WP:INDEPTH SIGCOV. WP:ROUTINE coverage Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Karnataka. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 03:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, several dozen hits on ProQuest, but I'm having difficulty finding coverage that is secondary and in-depth. Still, the festival has been around for over 25 years, so it seems likely there are good sources in music magazines and the like that I've missed. Mach61 06:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said in nom, no WP:INDEPTH SIGCOV. WP:ROUTINE coverage as mandated in all criterias of WP:NEVENT. There are various subjects with the very same name, so not sure about the results you got. @Mach61 Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User4edits My argument is that even insignificant coverage over a long time period is enough to show that the festival is of some repute, and since it has been around for a few decades, it is likely that sources I have not or cannot find have covered it in depth; for example, in an offline source that I could only read if I went to a library in India. Notability is not based on if sources are currently cited, it is based on if sources exist.

Of course, the presumption of coverage only goes so far. If the Festival got very few hits online, I would have no reason to assume it was prominent enough to receive offline coverage, and if it was founded more recently, I would assume that almost all sources discussing it would be online. But neither of those things are true in this case. Mach61 11:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is collaborative and well-referenced, and reports a significant regional cultural event; the large number of relevant and pertinent wikilinks to notable bands and performers demonstrates the significance of the festival in related articles.Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
significant regional cultural event ^{[according to whom?]} wikilinks to notable bands and performers^[relevant?] ^{[weasel words]}. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 10:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Trying one more relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Pietschmann[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the music notability guideline. A quick search before the nomination turned up no useable reliable sources. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Germany. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:SIGCOV. There is a single reliable source - the Piano Society - but that fails far short of significant coverage. The rest are not reliable or not independent. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of radio stations in California. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSGZ[edit]

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

This is a contested draftification. No sources in the article to establish the subject's notability. A quick search before the nomination turned up some database entries, but no significant coverage. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United States of America, and California. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in California: It is much more rare for a newer radio station (only extant since 2016) to attain the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG. Especially now that we're finally weeding out older substandard and entirely database-sourced radio station articles, there is no reason why a new article such as this could survive with just database sources. An {{R to list entry}} is as much as we really need here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in California per WCQuiddich. Nate • (chatter) 03:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melki Sedek Huang[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and in addition was created by a banned sockpuppeteer. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to be a notable activist[15] with enough citations available to support SIGCOV. Meets GNG. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No indication that the nominator has reviewed the existing sources on the page or performed any other WP:BEFORE activities. Jfire (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG, plenty of sources and coverage. SIGCOV applies.BabbaQ (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James D'Agostino[edit]

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

Notability is not established here refs include his own PhD thesis and the University gazeteer entry for him but very little that reliably and independently discusses him. Searches found nothing other than his publications although some results unavailable to me here in Europe. Appears to fail WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NACADEMIC. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poetry is a difficult field to become notable for. Many of the prizes in this field are of the form "submit your poems to our contest and if you win we will publish your chapbook" and are not the sort of national recognition that would pass WP:PROF#C2. Otherwise, to become notable in this area the most likely paths would be some kind of distinguished professorship and WP:PROF#C5 (not the case here) or multiple published reviews of multiple of the subject's books and WP:AUTHOR (but my searches found none of these). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Don't agree that "it's difficult to establish notability for poetry" leads directly to "so delete." He's got quite a few books, and the Anthony Hecht prize itself is notable. Al Alvarez, John Ashbery, Seamus Heaney, Thom Gunn, Donald Hall, Anthony Hecht, Donald Justice, Charles Simic, Mark Strand, Richard Wilbur, that's pretty impressive company. Definitely notable. Will follow up. https://waywiser-press.com/authors/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duenke (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) — Duenke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Went in and linked a few things; would propose the subject meets two of the criteria for notability of academics: "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" and "The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area." Duenke (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep D'Agostino taught a masterclass at Wells College as part of the Visiting Writers Series, which "began as a tradition to bring established writers and poets to Wells as early as 1973 and has since grown into an established program with state funding." ^[1]EdithRigatoni (talk)
- A writer teaching a seminar or giving a guest lecture is just the kind of thing that writers do. (You can't pay the rent in exposure, after all.) It might or might not be a significant honor. XOR'easter (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficiently notable - so far. Do all winners of the Hecht prize qualify for Wikipedia bios? Apparently not. Also, the Hecht prize's notability in of itself might be questionable - there is no standalone article featuring the Hecht prize as there is with some other notable prizes. Does one or two criteria for academics qualify if another few weak, non-notable prizes are included? I would say it is inching towards sufficiently notable, but just not all the way there.WmLawson (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Visiting Writers Series begins for spring semester".

Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG and lacking coverage from reliable independent sources.Contributor892z (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5, creator/sole significant contributor blocked as a sockpuppet. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Allan (actor)[edit]

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

It may be the age that he lived in but the sources provided don't establish notability and searches don't reveal anything better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR in my view, with multiple significant roles in (very) notable films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously meets WP:NACTOR. A frivolous nomination. Perspicax (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete - I looked for the roles that made them pass WP:NACTOR as the last two !votes state but failed to find much. The articles claims his best know films are With a Song in My Heart (film), The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film) and Niagara (1953 film): In With a Song in My Heart Allan is just listed as an unnamed 'dancer' in several sources; I just quick scanned a copy of The Snows of Kilimanjaro and they appear to be just a very small part as a dancer in a bar. Niagara looks to be the most significant but if that's all I can't see how they meet WP:NACTOR. So WD for now unless someone can point out what other significant roles they have done. KylieTastic (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the person pictured (here) is indeed our man, then it would seem we ought to keep this. A minor actor perhaps, yet a close-up love scene with Marilyn Monroe is what it is (and is "unique" and culturally significant – possibly enough to reach WP:NACTOR#2 in and unto itself). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0 yes that is them but "close-up love scene" is rather over stretching the two kisses in eleven seconds of footage. However if anyone want to judge for themselves: See here @12:57 then a telephone call and some whistling @25:40 for ~ a minute, @31:16 another minute of non-speaking part and then he's dead. KylieTastic (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KylieTastic, thanks for that precision frame-finding! I'm not claiming he was a major talent, but in this case: a kiss is still a kiss (perhaps). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0 no worries, I went looking to try to find a reason to keep which is always preferable, no point in wasting the effort and not sharing. It's all subjective and for me as this appears to be there most notable role I don't find this only one semi-significant role enough. Happy to change my !vote if anyone can point to something more. KylieTastic (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Nothing here either? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Curious about the German films from the late 50s. Were these bigger roles? What was he doing in Germany? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well my German is definitely not good enough for a deep dive on that :) KylieTastic (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Amin Zakaria[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per NPOL. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, county-level legislators, including state-level official in this context, are not presumed to be notable. However, exceptions may apply if they receive significant coverage as outlined in WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, which is not the case for this individual. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mizrahi Jews. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mashriqi Jews[edit]

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

Delete or redirect to Mizrahi Jews. The article is essentially absent; the concept is rarely used. Альдий (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Альдий (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Middle East. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mizrahi Jews per nom. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete I see very limited value, but if someone finds someone, a partial merge may be justified. FortunateSons (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guide (magazine)[edit]

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

No sources and seems to fail WP:GNG ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Christianity, and Philippines. ForsythiaJo (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at all. Searching doesn't bring up any results on Google. Seems to be some sort of internal magazine or documentation for its members.

WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable yet. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Guide (disambiguation) where there are potential targets as per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minor, non-notable news source. Disambiguation pages are to signpost to subjects already mentioned on Wikipedia, there would certainly be no point in redirecting. Sionk (talk) 00:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Guide (Adventist magazine) to Guide (magazine) as it appears to be the more notable of the two magazines (based on (superficial) comparative searches on Google). Could not find any meaningful coverage of this Guide magazine in a Wikipedia Library general search. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also fine with the delete and move. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatoumata Sanou[edit]

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

Women's basketball BLP which fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the pollitician of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor892z (talk • contribs) 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMMD-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not contain the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations: I can't imagine a low-power station that, its Class A television service status notwithstanding (which requires some local programming), is only known to have carried national services could ever get the required significant coverage to merit being anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill TV station which is now defunct. TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hibriza Nail Hawwa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, created by a sockpuppet. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Allan Nonymous you may want to tag the article for speedy deletion under category G5 if it is created by a sockpuppet. It may not need to go through the AfD process in this case. Otherwise, my vote would be Delete as this is not notable at all.

WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and added salt because of the habits of the sockpuppeteer in this case. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSD G5 does not apply here. Page creator was not evading a block when they created this article and later became a sockmaster, not a sockpuppet. Let the AFD continue and judge the article on its own merits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [16]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [17] [18]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any SIGCOV and she certainly doesn't pass NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Somebodyidkfkdt. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahajoe Imam Santosa[edit]

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

Only notable source is 'Who's who in the world'. Fails WP:GNG. The anti-sockpuppet war is going strong. Die, irrelevant Indonesian people articles. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update, the creator of this article is the notorious sockpuppeteer himself. Who knew? Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem to meet the requirements set by WP:NACADEMIC criteria, also there are no records found on Google Scholar. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [19]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [20] [21]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF; little sign of other notability. Watchlisting in case better sources in Indonesian can be found; all I saw were some modestly cited articles and usual online profiles. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as above. No indication of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Hurwitz (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As usual, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test doesn't vest in listing acting roles, it vests in showing that they've received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real reliable source media outlets about them and their performances. But this is completely unreferenced, and even the roles posited in the intro as his "best known" performances were still supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Anime and manga. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is merely a list at current, and I could not find any sufficient indications of notability outside of Wikipedia, either.WmLawson (talk) 12:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tam's Gold Seal Drugs[edit]

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

Searches fail to return any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources; likely fails GNG. Pretzelles (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indiana. Pretzelles (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- failed GNG and it also does not exist anymore today. Not much sources mention it.

WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There was some debate over the question whether becoming a CEO at the age of 14 is an event. Regardless, the achievement received a sufficient amount of significant coverage in mainstream, national news outlets over several years so as not to fail the third prong of BLP1E, as the Keep views correctly argued. I see no basis in policy that coverage has to be international, and don't find WP:NOTWEBHOST to be relevant here. Owen× ☎ 00:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close amended to no consensus with no prejudice against immediate renomination per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6. Daniel (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman[edit]

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

non-notable WP:1E, WP:NOTWEBHOST Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and Tamil Nadu. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 04:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline- As the event she is reported by multiple newspapers was about her acheivement. Changeworld1984 (talk) 09:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – biography only notable just because she is the youngest CEO, so BLP1E applies. I do not see anything that violates WP:NOTWEBHOST. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:1E does not appear to directly apply here - what is the event in question? How is being 14 an event? ~Kvng (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Her contribution to animation seems minimal, and all the coverage of her company (Seppan) only seemed to highlight that the CEO was 14. I would like to know if there are sources in foreign-language media that comments on her or Seppan's contribution to animation. Otherwise, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 3 and 10 are in RS, not an overwhelming keep, but we have enough confirmation of her notability. A Guinness record isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the sources are are more like an interview with the topic and doesn't seem independent. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as I checked, the sources are either dead or churnalism and sponsored posts. Bhivuti45 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I feel that WP:BLP1E shouldn't apply all that well to age. Especially because we have sources starting from 2011 and spanning to 2019. I agree that there is likely churnalism for some of the sources here, but there is at least 3 generally reliable sources that can be used. Part of the sources do contain interviews, but some either do commentate or introduce the subject before the interview, which constitutes just enough WP:INDEPENDENT for me. TLA^tlak 10:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Achievement is that she is the youngest CEO and that is all we know from one or two reliable sources and this was news in 2011. I do not see sources where the coverage was an international recognition. I did not find articles where her achievements were highly notable. Simple search now also takes you back to Indian news media links from 2011, 2013 and one from 2016 by hindu.com. I do not find her notable because there are many other young CEOs who are and can be considered notable because they were listed in Fortune 500 magazine but Sindhuja made into no such list. Maybe a page like List of youngest CEOs where I could have decided to redirect or merge to but I did not find any such page here. RangersRus (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Cameron[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As usual, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test doesn't vest in listing acting roles, it vests in showing that they've received WP:GNG-worthy coverage in real reliable source media outlets about them and their performances. But this is completely unreferenced, and even the roles posited in the intro as his "best known" performances were still supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage of this actor, all I find are social media and various PR sites. We have no sourcing in the article. I don't even think the roles listed are significant. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He had one major role - that of John Lee Malvo - but that is not enough to overcome WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G M Mostafizul Alam[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. The Award is not notable, and the coverage, which is mostly about the award, is not enough to pass notability guidelines. One article mentions an assault on him, but that would not be enough. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a web search and did not find any significant coverage. The only independent coverage I found were reports on his being assaulted at the NIDW in 2015,[22] and winning an award from Transparency National Bangladesh, also in 2015.[23] I don't find anything with significant coverage of the person. Neither being thrown out of an office nor winning a minor journalism award amounts to notability. I do not read Bengali, so it's possible there is coverage that I am not seeing, but neither the sources I have been able to find nor anything currently in the article indicates that that is the case. CodeTalker (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & per CodeTalker. No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found his profile in Earth Journalism Network [24], Mr. Alam also got notable awards from TIB which is a renowned organization.[25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.29.181.97 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EJN page is just a database entry and does not provide significant coverage or contribute to notability. Did he really receive multiple "awards" from TIB? As far as I can see, he received the award only once, in 2015. CodeTalker (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G M Mostafizul Alam won single award for his investigative journalism. Which is a notable/remarkable award from TIB. EJN won't entry anyone's name in their database unless they're not their enlisted correspondent or journalist. 175.29.181.97 (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - per 175.29.181.97 (talk), TIB is a notable organization and their awards are also notable. NisoBird (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 175.29.181.97 and NisoBird. Mr. Mostafizul Alam is a renowned journalist in Bangladesh. I found the award and fellowship list database in his portfolio website. [26] However, the news coverage on him are trustworthy and reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:C600:4524:39E8:1:0:B0D5:6398 (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment— There are seven sources used in the article. The first two sources are tags from news organizations that list the number of articles he wrote for them, five in total. The third is a primary source from TIB mentioning the award they gave him. The fourth and fifth are coverage of that award, received by four journalists, including the subject, in 2015. The sixth is an interview of G M Mostafizul Alam. The seventh article is a news report on the assault on G M Mostafizul Alam and his cameraman at a government office. Not enough to pass notability guidelines.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment— Only the relevant, trustworthy and the weightful sources are added as references. All though, the refences are from reliable sources. So the article should be alive and debate should be dismissed. NisoBird (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

If the seven sources currently in the article are the best that can be mustered, then clearly the subject does not meet notability guidelines, since they are all either primary or without significant coverage of the subject, as Vinegarymass911 has shown. Whether the sources are reliable is not the question. CodeTalker (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The award [27] he won, the fellowship he got, the work [28] [29] [30] hie is doing made notable. 175.29.181.97 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all links to his own web site and therefore do not contribute to notability. I'm not sure you understand Wikipedia's notability policy; see WP:N. We need references that are secondary (not based on what he himself has published or said) with significant coverage (not just mentioning his name or the fact that he exists and is a journalist). CodeTalker (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Alam notable by his works and the award he won. 175.29.181.97 (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:NisoBird, the creator and primary contributor to this article, has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Johnvola. NisoBird moved this article to mainspace while the sockmaster was blocked. CodeTalker (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should be G5. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ineligible for soft deletion, but I don't see another spin engendering input where the first two didn't. Happy to restore upon request without DRV Star Mississippi 01:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kesatuan Gurita[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Once again, I'd like to propose the deletion of this article. Initially, my awareness of this unit arose from its presence on Wikipedia, prompting me to contribute and expand it beyond its initial stub status. However, I encountered significant challenges due to the scarcity of available sources. A search yielded only around 9-10 books, all of which contained very similar information, suggesting a common source, likely the oldest among them. Furthermore, the information from these books has already been incorporated into the article, resulting in a mere three-sentence paragraph.

Moreover, my efforts to find reliable Indonesian-language sources proved unfruitful, despite the unit's affiliation with the Indonesian military. I expected to find references to it within documents from the Indonesian National Armed Forces or Indonesian Navy, or possibly in the archives of the National Archives of Indonesia if it held historical significance. However, my inquiries only led to wiki-like websites and forums, all drawing from the same pool of information found in the books.

While the term "gurita" (octopus) is commonly used within Indonesian navy contexts, associations with units such as the 5th Marine Infantry Battalion, which bears the nickname "Gurita Cakti," and naval special force task force known as Satgas Gurita, a military training codename for operations like hostage rescue, counterterrorism, and securing critical facilities (see 1 for reference), both appear unrelated to the unit in question.

Consequently, I am inclined to believe that this unit may be fictitious, with the information provided in the books possibly stemming from a misunderstanding or error. It's important to acknowledge that even reliable sources are not infallible. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on my limited research, I do think the unit truly existed. An article in RRI showed that the unit existed. Another news article that mentioned it are Jatim Network which is less reliable than RRI. However, I do realize that RRI may have taken the information from wrong sources as well - as it seems very odd that the unit is similar with Denjaka or Taifib but somehow get way less coverage. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: I'm inclined to think that RRI might also have inaccurate information, considering it was only briefly mentioned in that article. And, the statement from RRI contradicts other sources, as it suggests that the unit is part of the Indonesian Marine Corps, while other sources in those books indicate that it is an Indonesian Navy Special Forces unit. Additionally, as you pointed out, it's quite unusual that we couldn't locate any dedicated coverage for this unit. Moreover, after looking into the regulations on armed forces organization throughout history, none of them mention anything about this unit, whereas they do mention other special forces units like Denjaka or Taifib. IMO, this is a case of WP:NPOSSIBLE, as there are few or no suitable sources that could be cited to expand this article. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at Indonesian military documents today and it seems like "Kesatuan Gurita" is never mentioned everywhere. For instance, this document mentioned all others in passing - Denjaka, Taifib, and Kopaska - but not Gurita. I can see official documents about others but searches to Gurita give no information. The problem of this is that it is mentioned in books, thus the unit is not entirely fictional. It is possible that at some point Gurita existed but it is merged or renamed to other unit. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: The absence of any mention of the unit "Kesatuan Gurita" in official Indonesian armed forces or navy sources raises doubts about its existence. This unit is only referenced in approximately 9-10 books, which all provide similar information. However, the lack of corroborating evidence suggests a potential misunderstanding or misinterpretation by the authors, possibly due to the unfamiliarity of the terminology to non-native speakers of Indonesian. It's plausible that they confused "Kesatuan Gurita" with the legitimate military task force "Satgas Gurita" (an abbreviation of "Satuan Tugas Gurita"), as mentioned earlier. And, especially considering that the word of "Kesatuan" is unheard of in Indonesian military terminology, with the word of "Satuan" being the more commonly used term.Ckfasdf (talk) 08:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. per WP:G5, only significant contributors were socks. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Guru Haji Ahmad[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG, likely part of the efforts of an Indonesian sock network (tho cannot confirm for now). Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is limited substantial coverage and sourcing about him, mainly dependent on a single primary source covering him and 21 other scholars in Bengkalis regency. Nonetheless, his name has been honored as the title of a local public library, there is an article about him on the local government website, and there is an academic publication about him indicating his significance within local region. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [31]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [32] [33]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep: This, this, this, this and the book already cited in the article should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chesley Awards[edit]

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

This is a non notable award. Only primary sources and non independent sources seem to exist. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be an encyclopedia, then it should be encyclopedic. Deleting articles because an editor is not familiar with a topic, as seems to be the case here, where this chap @Big Money Threepwood refers to the award as being "non notable," is counter to the very concept of creating an encyclopedic source of information. Independent sources abound for those willing to look. The award has been around for many decades. Edifice of the Cosmic Overarch (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a whole book about them. They are cited frequently in this reference work about fantasy art. The results are covered every year by trade publications (ProQuest 232540284, ProQuest 205466020, [34], [35]). Jfire (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a literature search even done before starting this AfD? Yes, the article needs work and more citations. However, saying the "pinnacle award in the (SF/F) genre for art" is non-notable is ridiculous. This article absolutely meets notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why in the world would this article be deleted? The article may need some work, but the Chesley Awards are of historical and contemporary significance. This is an important article. Look at the awards that the biggest names in SF&F art mention in their bios and you will see the Chesley listed. Look no further than Bob Eggleton as an example. JollyGreenOgre (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Funny coincidence, I have literally read the book listed (a long time ago, grant you). This clearly meets WP:GNG.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The clearly canvassed SPAs were not about to mount a cohesive, P&G-based argument to counter that of the Delete views. Owen× ☎ 00:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samte Khoda[edit]

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

Non-notable, I do not find WP:SIGCOV demonstrating that it is a notable TV show. Created by user to build credibility for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Najmeddin Shariati Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 14:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Iran. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 14:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear User4edits

This article is significant because it is about one of the most popular television programs of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Organization, which has been running since 2009.

Please remove it from the removal list

Thanks

Please see this article (IRIB TV3) for verification

The name of the TV show Samte Khoda is mentioned in it M.sharaki (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has the necessary infrastructure, including a complete biography of the Samte Khoda program with authentic and documented references and the availability of the article in Persian language. M.sharaki (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — M.sharaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep In my opinion, it is an article that convinces people and has the protocols of Wikipedia.Yahosein525 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Yahosein525 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with what nom said.Tehonk (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has the necessary infrastructure, including a complete biography of the God side program with authentic and documented references and the availability of the article in Persian language.M.sharaki (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: M.sharaki (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
You may only !vote once. Please strike through one of your keeps since they are duplicates. Star Mississippi 22:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI agree with keeping this article. ThanksHadimirjafari (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Hadimirjafari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since several "votes"/opinions are either duplicates or from very new editors (or both), I'd welcome participation from some of our AFD regulars who are more familiar with notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially given the failure to find any WP:SIGCOV with WP:DEPTH by other editors.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, in my opinion this article is qualified to remain in Wikipedia, because the text of the article is correct and it matches its references, in my opinion keep it, thank you Zeynab90 (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — Zeynab90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Apart from not having sources in English i found a bunch of sources in Persian language. I think the subject maybe WP:N. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non DEPTH mentions Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello friends, I confirm the accuracy of all information and references in this article. Because I am an Iranian and this is an Iranian TV program that has been active for many years and is known and famous. In my opinion, this article should be preserved because according to this article Wikipedia (WP:SIGCOV) has the right to be preserved. Sghanbarpour (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC) — Sghanbarpour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closer: Above (and many others) are SPA. Maybe even SOCKS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herlambang Perdana Wiratraman[edit]

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

Not notable by WP:GNG the only notable source that mentions him (detiknews), mentions him in passing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [36]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [37] [38]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razib Khan[edit]

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

There are insufficient notable secondary sources that describe the subject of this article. Most of the notable sources describe the event with the New York Times, but that single event is not notable. Most of the individual's notability comes from his own publications, but Wikipedia requires notable secondary sources. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Biology, Bangladesh, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep There appear to be several secondary sources (books and articles) already cited in the story. Entirely separate from coverage the New York Times incident, notable RS already cited include Regalado (MIT Technology Review), Gonyea (NPR), Walker, Cussins, Rieland, and Newton. There's also Dunbar-Ortiz, page 43, which could be added. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Mr. Razib Khan is a global researcher, published too many research papers and coauthor of several books, owned a identity in google scholar or like other renowned research publisher (Find several secondary sources: Google (books · news · scholar etc) and also got remarkable citation against his publication. For this why his biographical story can be include for getting information by others through a common platform like wikipedia. As per WP:ACADEMIC WP:SCHOLAR Article may need to remove from deletion list to keep this in wikipedia. Thanks -

Md. Giashuddin Chowdhury (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Asian American Professionals[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:ORG, and almost entirely sourced by primary sources. No significant coverage from secondary sources found in a WP:BEFORE search, just passing mentions of someone winning a NAAAP award [39], [40]. Wikishovel (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. Wikishovel (talk) 16:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuma Mmeka[edit]

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

There are many sources but all are blogs and self published. No way to notability and SIGCOV. The books were all self pubs and the citations were blogs from unreliable sources. The subject fails WP:AUTHOR and no way to SNG All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More of PROMO! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Given the high number of people who support keeping this article, it is clear that the consensus is to keep it. (non-admin closure). InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC) ‎[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186[edit]

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

Yet again we have a case where a precedent is being ignored simply because it's "definitely notable". This eclipse is more than 100 years into the future, which similar AFDs (example) have found to need nothing more than a redirect. References are all stats-crunching database entries. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Edit/comment: my first preference would be a redirect, as it was previously, just in case that wasn't obvious. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, South America, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe reading this article in its entirety might lead you to realize that the article is not all database entries. There is an entire section about the eclipse's extreme duration that describes in length the scientific reason behind why this eclipse is so long. Also, I understand you're trying to bring up WP:JUSTNOTABLE as a point for your case but that specifically only applies to cases where no other reasons are given to support that claim. This is the longest solar eclipse in several thousand years, and it was already decided in an earlier discussion that the event was notable. I would ask that next time, before deleting a page that has already been decided to be notable, at least start some sort of discussion about it on the talk page. Poxy4 (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the precedent does not do much to help your case here, as the eventual decision there was to default to the general notability guidelines. Nobody specifically mentioned the 2186 eclipse as being not notable and there has been no specific consensus about this eclipse. Poxy4 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why we're at AFD. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly believe that this eclipse is notable. Not only is it the longest for several thousand years before and after it, but the page goes into great length to explain why the eclipse will have such extreme duration. The content here helped me to learn more about how eclipse duration can vary and, after all, shouldn't that be the goal of any good encyclopedia? Poxy4 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your prerogative. I will assume you are referring to Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 § Extreme duration regarding the "great lengths" it goes to, but I will note that this is nearly identical to Solar eclipse § Duration, meaning that this information is available elsewhere already and is not unique to this article. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As much as that page can help to explain how eclipse duration is determined, this page does so within the context of a specific, likely historic eclipse. It helps to explain specifically what makes this eclipse so long. Also, simply the presence of a portion of the article that aligns with another portion of another article doesn't make that part of the article worthless; plenty of notable articles on Wikipedia contain information of even entire sections based on those from other pages. Point is, just because this eclipse is 162 years away does not negate the fact that it will be a phenomenal and notable eclipse. Poxy4 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never said that it wouldn't be. I just said that it fails GNG and should be redirected like similar eclipses. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In saying that this eclipse fails GNG you're implying that the eclipse is not notable. I'm not sure what you mean by "Never said that it wouldn't be." Poxy4 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just saying, simply saying it fails GNG and not saying why falls under WP:JNN. Poxy4 (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the phenomenal... eclipse sentiment. Also, I gave reasons why notability has not been demonstrated. We clearly have a difference of opinion, so I think I'm done justifying my nomination to you. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "phenomenal... eclipse" part includes when I said the eclipse was notable. When you say the eclipse fails WP:GNG you're saying it's not notable. If you don't feel like explaining why this article should be deleted that's fine but understand that it's probably because there's no good reason for this article to be deleted. Poxy4 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Philosphically, notability cannot exist in the future unless we are, perhaps, in one of many variants of the multiverse. There is also an increasing risk that neither Wikipedia nor human kind will be around to witness this event. Those considerations aside however, there is no evidence of sources that convey notability. So... as set out by the nom, it fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that future events can't be notable simply isn't true. If it was, then things like the Heat death of the universe, the Stability of the Solar System, and even the 2024 United States presidential election wouldn't be considered notable. So obviously, some future events can be considered notable before they occur. The odds are that humanity will still be around by 2186 and even if we aren't Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) shouldn't operate based on the principle that we might not be around when these events happen. Humanity could be extinct in a few years but that doesn't mean we should delete the article for the Solar eclipse of August 12, 2026. There are plenty of sources to use for this article which can be found with just a simple Google search and the event even has some coverage already (due in part to the 2024 eclipse). Poxy4 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some helpful sources by the way.
LiveScience

Vice

Astronomy.com

Poxy4 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added some of that coverage to the page in the "Responses" section. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only reasons that have been given as to why this article should be deleted are that (1) it's just database entries (a quick read of the article proves otherwise), (2) the content in one section is similar to the content in another section of another article (which really means nothing), (3) notability cannot exist in the future (which it can, as proven by the many Wikipedia articles about future events), (4) humanity might not exist by 2186 (and humans might also not be around by 2045 but nobody has argued the notability of that year's eclipse) and (5) there are no sources (which there are). This event is the longest known eclipse that scientists have yet discovered and takes place in only 162 years, which on an astronomical timescale is virtually nothing. Poxy4 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. There's no need for a boilerplate article on this distant future event. Praemonitus (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this is a "boilerplate" article. It's not just some robotic mash of crunched numbers. It goes into detail about the duration of the eclipse and its causes. Also, if I may remind you, this eclipse is the longest eclipse for at least several thousand years and these longest we've discovered yet. As far in the future it is, it is a phenomenal and, yes, notable event.

Also, as for not "needing" this article, that argument applies to a slew of articles here. We don't need articles on a lot of the stuff we have here, but sometimes someone will come along and be curious about something and want to search for it on Wikipedia, which is what all good encyclopedias are for. Poxy4 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The data context is available on the suggested redirect target. WP:WHATABOUT isn't a valid argument for a keep. Praemonitus (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not. Only minimal data is available for each eclipse on the redirect page. And sure, WHATABOUT would apply if I was saying something like "If we delete this page we would have to delete x as well" or something like that, but I'm bringing up other articles to argue the principle of what Vellela was saying (that articles can't be notable in the future and that we might not even be around by then). Poxy4 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is more than sufficient information for a non-notable event in the far future. This article may seem important to you, but that's not how we assess notability for Wikipedia. Has it received any news stories or been published in a book or paper? If not, then it's not notable per WP:GNG. The outside world presents this information in table format, and there's no reason for us to do any different. Praemonitus (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This this a unique eclipse from the non-astronomer WP:READER's perspective. Also, point of order: shouldn't the editors on the 2020 AfD (which was closed as Keep) have been pinged to weigh in? Mike Peel, ItsPugle, Oleryhlolsson, Tomruen, Casliber. Retrying since I didn't do it right the first time. BBQboffin^{grill me} 15:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I left out @Lightburst the 2020 nominator. BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying the pings again: @Mike Peel, @ItsPugle, @Oleryhlolsson, @Tomruen, @Casliber BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would be my ideal but I can live with Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century if all unique information on latter page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or~~ Redirect as with above recommendations. I really want to petition for this not to become a precedent, we don't need a million articles for solar events just for the fun of it. Tim (Talk) 05:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No yeah, obviously we should delete random eclipses with no intrinsic notability for now. The reason I think this eclipse is notable is its extreme duration. Poxy4 (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Redirect, with Keep as second preference. While I recognise the importance of this event, I think that it is still on the path towards common notability/being noteable for the common person and that at this stage (noting, over 120 years before the event), it would be best as a well-written section in another article. Tim (Talk) 05:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable eclipse, isn't too far off in astronomical timescales (Wikipedia will still be around then, right?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't assume that Wikipedia will be around by that time but we should operate on the assumption that it will. Poxy4 (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Solar eclipses are rare in themselves. This particular eclipse will be the longest of any eclipse in 4000 years. The page is good. It is written well, has sources, and good graphics. Kindly, leave this page alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5EF0:4740:ADFA:CB89:8699:180D (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the response but please do try to keep this civil. Poxy4 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The idiot" is an astronomer that has extensively contributed to Wikipedia for more than a decade. You can disagree without resorting to name-calling. Tercer (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The eclipse is notable because of its length, and the article is much more than a database entry. Tercer (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, references to "stats-crunching database entries" aren't bad, necessarily. A database can be reliable and provide in-depth information. What the WP:NOTDB policy says to avoid is Statistics that lack context or explanation. And here, there's plenty of context and explanation. XOR'easter (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article by googling what the longest possible eclipse was and it answers the question while providing important context. Regardless of how far in the future it is, the longest-known duration solar eclipse is interesting, and information like this is why I love Wikipedia. LarsOsborne (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is sadly already in the upper echelons of eclipse articles I have come across. I think the sources give potential for this article to get a bit more bulk and it will easily overshadow most of the 19th-century eclipse articles, pun intended. It is certainly much more detailed than some of the near-future eclipse articles (1, 2), which show no sign of notability at all. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / IP Keep. The nominator's argument for getting rid of this while ignoring FAR inferior articles about much, much less stand-out eclipses, that just happen to be closer in time absolutely reeks of the future-oriented concept of WP:RECENTism. Saying that this, the article about the longest real total solar eclipse that has ever been calculated, isn't notable, while conveniently ignoring many, many other far less well written articles (I could go on for a frankly depressingly long time) about other total eclipses that are not special in any way, shape, or form is completely absurd. I cannot understand why the nominator seems to have such a vendetta against this article in particular, that s/he has unilaterally deleted the article on two occasions within around 9 months, despite there being an AfD within a couple of years that concluded it should not be deleted.
I was one of the most active Wikipedians for well over a decade, and I've been "retired" for almost eight years, mostly due to growing tired of dealing with petty things like this, and seeing this AfD almost made me come out of retirement, but I can't be bothered to find my password. If this eclipse isn't notable, none of them are, except maybe for ones like the one in 1919 that confirmed relativity. Using the same argument given to delete this, we should also delete the article about VY Canis Majoris, right? It's "only" notable because it's big, right? (And no, I am not saying we should delete any of those pages) 2606:29C0:10C:2240:7996:F255:A8EB:1142 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a real event, a well-written and full article, and I have no idea why it would be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia is planning to be around for a few centuries, so this is "current" in Wikipedia-years, and brings up the question of why any well written eclipse articles have been deleted or redirected in the past. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most eclipse article are worse-written than this one, and I don't think this one is particularly well-written. To me it had seemed that eclipse articles rarely get redirected/deleted, even if we have nothing on them. I'd be curious to hear about eclipse articles of similar quality to this getting deleted; that might be helpful for my work on improving eclipse articles and understanding how these are treated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual bugs and humans will be gone, but institutions, bureaucracies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth will remain. All is vanity. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those shocked that I would nominate this article and not the dozens of other sub-standard eclipse articles that are "worse than this one"... this page was on my watchlist, it got edited to remove a redirect, and so I nominated it for deletion knowing that I could not simply revert the recreation. I don't go seeking these things out, but if I come across sub-standard eclipse articles in the future I will likely either redirect them or (if contested) nominate them as well. Primefac (talk) 06:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nasib[edit]

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

None of the citations provided are notable per WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll try and improve the page so that it is easier to see that it meets WP:NFILM. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)(NB- In general, for released films with multiple sources, a redirect should be/is considered (to either director/list of film of the year by country).[reply]
Comment: There is this in UtusanTV. There appears be SIGCOV in 120 Malay Movies. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the above there is also this, this, this, this and this, which should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above. Does seem to meet WP:GNG. S5A-0043^Talk 12:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per identified sources. Toughpigs (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Human rights in Iran. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian cleric taking photo incident[edit]

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

Serious WP:N, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:LASTING issues. The title also appears to be shoddy Borgenland (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Crime, Events, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not everything that happens in the news needs to have its own article. No reason to keep based on existing sourcing. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I swear we just had a similar incident at AfD... Oaktree b (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling through AFDs, I often have feelings of deja vu. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got confused with the templates when I nominated it. My bad. Borgenland (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human rights in Iran: Non-notable incident in a long list of similar events in the country. Oaktree b (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. It seems like a common event. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amaron[edit]

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

Not notable. A minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we have decided that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day does not apply to Mormonism, chipping away at little bits of Mormonism is a bit pointless. Here are some references that I found using Google Books which the nominator ought to have found while doing WP:BEFORE: Reference 1, Reference 2, Reference 3. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Лисан аль-Гаиб: and before making this comment you should have checked whether the linked sources contain significant independent coverage... They do not appear to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete As the above users sources demonstrate, this person is only mentioned in-universe, such as the devotionals linked The Trash Compactor (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE — Maile (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not finding the sort of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would suggest that the topic is suitable for a stand-alone wikipedia page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and as per the nom. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per filer & Horse Eye's Back's reasonings. If appropriate, merge to a suitable (and notable) article. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 16:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Transatlantic flight. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

London to New York Air Route[edit]

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

There aren't many reliable sources that describe this air route. We already have an article at transatlantic flight that should cover this. Interstellarity (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the article as it stands seems to be largely WP:SYNTH. The sources cited do not directly describe this route per se, and I see no sign that the route meets WP:GNG any more than the hundreds of other key routes between major city pairs. The Translatlantic flight article has sufficient mention of the route and a standalone page is not justified, per WP:NOPAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I feel like it is the best to merge it with the Transatlantic Flight article. The route does have a lot of history of being a way of connecting North America to Europe, or just being a way for people to go to London but modern planes with great engineering like the Airbus A321 and Boeing 767 and 777s have the range to do JFK-LGA with no stops, as compared to the Comet 70.167.194.163 (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for the Merge option suggested by the IP editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transatlantic flight page. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transatlantic flight page. Bduke (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to ATX#Variants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra ATX[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. never gained any significant adoption. EVGA's website only describes the product as XL-ATX. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Motherboard form factor#Size variants, where it's mentioned. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ATX#Variants as preferred WP:ATD ~Kvng (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ATX#Variants per Kvng. Skynxnex (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 01:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyst Wrestling[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Half the current references are WP:NOTRELIABLE according to WP:PW/RS and a search didn't show any potential to fix it.

Edit: and the rest of the sources are also unreliable (WP:USERGENERATED) or trivial mentions (WP:ORGTRIV). Spagooder (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Wrestling, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as I said when I removed the soft delete, there are RS sources cited that are all entirely about the company. Perhaps you should show why you feel the sources are not RS instead of compound delete noming? The talk page was available for discussion... Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator also states "half the references" are not RS... which seems to imply the rest are fine for asserting notability (?) ... this feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response You wrote it, so it's understandable that you'd be defensive of it. Per PW/RS — "Avoid using these sources. They report rumors, speculation, and have no reliable sourcing (where they get their information from)." If you scroll to the bottom, you'd see footnotes listing some specifics. In the case of Wrestling Estate, which you used 3 times, it's a "fan website with no visible oversight." Those are just the ones immediately disqualified by PW/RS, which I said in my original reasoning. If you have further questions about their rationale, please reach out to them.

Now, let's evaluate the other sources—Jersey City Upfront is a "hyper-local blog" ("generally unacceptable" per WP:UGC) and Alliance-Wrestling is "the premier fan site for the National Wrestling Alliance, blogging" ("generally unacceptable" again). Fightful is a reliable secondary source but its 2 uses were for results (trivial coverage that does not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement, per WP:ORGTRIV) and Last Word on Sports looks like it could be a reliable secondary source, but it's just a local event preview (again, trivial coverage).

This article would need a full rehaul to meet the minimum standard but I haven't seen anything to show me that's currently possible. Spagooder (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coherence-free processor[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline. Can only find a single academic paper as a reference, and that appears to be written by the editor that created the page. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bot removed the link from cache coherence.

Since this is a coherence mechanism, can I place it there or under cache coherency protocols?

That eliminates the notability problem. The reason I created a new topic was because it is rather lengthy.

Thank you FrankYang43338 (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest following the steps outlined here if there is conflict of interest, and requesting the edit on the talk page of one of those articles (see Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request). Do let me know if I can provide further info, but afraid I'm probably not qualified to add content in this area myself with confidence. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed this is an attempt to republish an academic paper as a Wikipedia article. Blatant violation of WP:NOT. Tercer (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep comment here from the article creator so I don't think Soft Deletion is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 00:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congress Hotel (Portland, Oregon)[edit]

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

Hotel does not appear to meet notability guidelines. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Oregon. OiYoiYoink (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think this? I quickly and easily found several sources that suggest the building is notable. The architect is notable and the article could be expanded with details about the building's design and construction, ownership and other tenants, and demolition. Not to mention, some of the building's arches were converted into a gazebo structure that's included on the city's Historic Resource Inventory. This is an obvious keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am glad you found some sources and enhanced the article. OiYoiYoink (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OiYoiYoink Thanks! Do you still believe the topic is not notable? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe write more than a single sentence with a single source when creating articles and you wouldn't have to sigh on your talk page so much. These nominations aren't so unnecessary if they result in the expansion that should have happened in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've said this to me ad nauseam. Call me old fashioned, but I think WP:BEFORE should be followed instead of just jumping to AfD at every opportunity. Also, I would appreciate if you would take my user talk page off your watchlist because you clearly follow me around and target my work, even when I have asked you to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The sources currently in the article don't show any notability whatsoever (listicles typically don't count), it's usually easy to track that information down for notable buildings. And we definitely have lots of crufty Portland business articles on this site that we keep because of local consensus. There's a photo in the book Vanishing Portland but the caption isn't really significant coverage. I may have missed historical articles though - if I have, please ping me. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer You have! Check out this book. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that book is that it's not necessarily discriminate - it talks about a number of different hotels in Portland. I've written articles on several demolished hotels across the world now, and I always look at what newspapers of the time have said about the hotel in order to demonstrate notability. The only one we have at the moment is that it hosted a convention, which does not demonstrate notability. There should be articles about its opening and closing, especially during the period in which it was built, which will require some sort of source search. At the moment, it's sort of pieced together on the back of sugar packets. I'd be happy to change to a keep if better sourcing can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 22:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer There are dozens of sources at the Oregonian archives accessible via Multnomah County Library. Thousands if you count solely passing mentions. I'll add some to the entry as I have time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when you've added a couple, will change to keep if they're sufficiently substantial (such as the opening.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing! I added "Hotel demise - end of an era" already, but I probably won't be able to add more tonight. Other things to do! Thanks for being willing to revisit ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to keep, discovered the Oregonian quoted a contemporaneous article in a discussion on its closure which clearly showed significant coverage like you would see for a notable early 20th century demolished hotel. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like Thank you! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the article now meets WP:GNG after the latest round of edits. I retract my prior delete vote. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Delete- this hotel is not notable. See the sources- it's just listings. The sources do not show why it is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. See WP:MILL. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate at all. ~~Thanks for the drive-by delete vote.~~ ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your disagreement is duly noted. And for you to claim that it is a drive-by delete vote is highly inappropriate. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this just a "listing"? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show that it's notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. I'm going to move on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the expansion of the page and sources occurring since the nomination. Now easily meets GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources added seem sufficient to keep the article now. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it me or does it seem like a lot of Portland companies and business articles get nominated for AFDs compared to organizations in other major cities in the U.S.? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz: My perception is that Another Believer, who has 200+ featured and good articles and lists to their name, has a strong interest in creating articles about Portland (Oregon)–related content (among other topics), and often creates more articles than they have time and energy to fully develop. Many of those articles are so short and stubby that they attract the attention of people who, for whatever reason, do not perform a full WP:BEFORE search but instead go straight to AFD. Why they do this is not for me to explain. All of that said, some of Another Believer's article topics have failed my cursory WP:BEFORE searches, which leads me to think that there are probably some topics of questionable notability among this prolific editor's thousands of contributions, expansions, and creations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the WP:AUD prong of WP:NCORP, my sense is Portland has more local businesses with articles than probably should exist on here with sourcing only local to Portland. But this is a long closed business, and large early 20th-century hotels were often notable... SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the excellent expansion by Another Believer, WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the new expansion has made it into an article worth keeping, it passes WP:GNG along with the newly added sources. TheTankman (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now it's been shown through sources that the topic is notable and passes the GNG. The nomination was made when the article consisted of a couple of sentences and a single source.[41] WP:BEFORE suggests a fairly basic Google search is sufficient. The search results generated will not be identical for everyone as the searcher's location and other factors are taken into account in the results presented, so it shouldn't be assumed that a proper BEFORE was not carried out. Rupples (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer, Rupples and others. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W41AP[edit]

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: in theory, there is at least an outside chance that a 32-year low-power television station, moreso than many of the newer all-diginet LPTVs, might attain the needed significant coverage to meet the GNG and merit an article. But it was also the television station of the Sandusky Register — which, if nothing else, ensures that the Register would not be an independent source here. I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of nominal merger with the Register's article if there is enough sourcing to merit even that (though being tagged as unsourced since 2011 is not exactly an encouraging sign), but a separate article seems hard to justify at this point. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Back in the DHSS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuckin' 'Ell It's Fred Titmus[edit]

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

I'm a major Half Man Half Biscuit fan, as anyone who can work out where I got my username from will realise. I've created several dozen {{R from song}}s to the band's albums. I didn't mark any as {{R with possibilities}} because I didn't think any had them. This album track and crowd favourite is no different, much as I've enjoyed it for nearly 40 years. The sources are WP:REFBOMBINGs of track listings and gig reviews. None suffices to meet WP:NSONG.

Redirect to Back in the DHSS as {{R from song}} while keeping the categories.

I'm bringing this article to AfD rather than WP:BOLDly WP:BLARing it because it's been around since 2009. I haven't notified the article creator because they were WP:BLOCKed in 2018 for reasons which at passing glance look irrelevant to this discussion. Narky Blert (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I love it, but it's just an album track with nothing in particular to merit a standalone article. --Michig (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I know this song but wouldn't expect it to have its own entry outside the album page. Orange sticker (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W63AU[edit]

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

Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Let'srun (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Elmazi[edit]

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

Played 1 professional league game then disappeared. No sign of WP:SPORTBASIC. My own searches yielded only database sources and one trivial mention in Panorama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, fails WP:SPORTBASIC—one league appearance in five years. Anwegmann (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as three databases, no source. Problem of SIGCOV! but may meet still meet notability in the future! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTBASIC Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Asamsum[edit]

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

Despite playing some matches for Persiwa Wamena, this footballer doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. The article is currently nothing more than a stats stub and my own searches yielded only Metrobanjar, a squad list mention, Banjarmasin, a trivial mention, and Viva, another trivial mention. Soccerway and other stats sites have his name as 'Asmsamsum', which also yields no good results. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Several searches literally brought up nothing at all beyond a loose reference in Football Manager 17. Fails WP:SIGCOV at the very least. Anwegmann (talk) 23:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article. A discussion about a potential merge can continue on the article's Talk page, and doesn't require an AfD. Owen× ☎ 23:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megaton (Fallout 3)[edit]

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

Non-notable, and if it is, why aren't there articles on other, equally notable towns in the Fallout series? Why just Megaton? --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --Bumpf said this! ^{ooh clicky clicky!} [insert witty meta-text on wiki-sigs here] 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per WP:MERGEREASON. There's not enough sourcing or content present to sustain a stand alone article, especially if these overly long and drawn out direct quotes are trimmed down to a reasonable length. Really feels like it was particularly dragged out to create the illusion of needing a separate article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might do a WP:BEFORE and see if I can salvage this. This article relies on post-release sourcing, which suggests there is a wellspring of contemporary commentary, particularly in the treatment of the Power of the Atom questline that may justify its inclusion. That questline in particular was a major design anchor for the game and recieved specific praise. But I'm mindful until I find that sourcing this has a bit of a tenor of WP:ITSNOTABLE. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator) I fully admit the current state of the article's sourcing is not up to par with the now-extremely-stringent WP:VG criteria for a standalone article. But there are certainly numerous reliable sources that talk specifically about the now-infamous Megaton and its highly notable decision. The AV Club and GamesRadar+ are already in the article, and TheGamer has yet to be integrated into it as it was written in 2023(!). There is also a VICE article that is not integrated as a reference yet. There is a ScreenRant article here as well, and I know some people do consider it proof of notability, even if others don't. In conclusion, these are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems and I will try to expand the sourcing to fulfill the modern criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that the sole argument of the nom is that the page is "non-notable" which I have soundly refuted, so the nomination is already incorrect per WP:SK#3. Why there are "not other articles" on other notable towns is assumedly because nobody has written them yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Found yet another article in Destructoid and a news mention of Megaton's explosion getting removed from the Japanese version here. Clearly I wasn't thorough enough in my initial search for sources, which I regret, but it should be clear that this is a notable page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I got this. I should be providing a sourcelist in this discussion quite shortly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Performed a non-exhaustive WP:BEFORE that illustrates that the location is notable and contains content that has been subject to enough significant commentary, paired with the other mentioned sources earlier, to merit an article:
- In terms of magazines: Not as good as I hoped. That said, there's no shortage of contemporary sources that provide brief non-WP:SIGCOV praise or commentary on Megaton and the Power of the Atom questline, both as a highlight of the depth of locations and side-missions,^[1] or the open-ended moral and gameplay choices available to the player.^[2]^[3] Play briefly described the questline as being one of the "best moments" experienced on the PlayStation as one of the "earliest and most challenging" and character-defining decisions made in the game.^[4] However! Edge provided an in-depth article on Megaton, outlining how it "epitomises" the game's "grand adventure", describing the Power of the Atom quest as "game-defining" and analysing the impacts of player choice on the game.^[5]
- In terms of books: Seems there's ample analysis. Harvard music professor William Cheng dedicated several pages to recounting and analysing the design of the game in reflecting the ethics and player agency experienced when detonating the bomb.^[6] Tom Bissell briefly praised Megaton as an example of the game establishing the "buffet of choices" and open-ended "narrative viability" available to the player in the early stages of the game.^[7] Marist College games professor Karen Schrier discusses and analyses how the game approaches moral problems in its Atom questline, critiquing the binary approach taken as "too moral" in its use of temptation to direct the player to good and bad consequences.^[8] University of Groningen Media and cultural studies professor Lars de Wildt et al. discuss in depth the Children of the Atom in Megaton as a contemporary example of a new trope of post-apocalyptic faith in literature.^[9]
Merge per Sergecross73. While the sources presented above are solid, they are not entirely about the location. They are about the narrative design of Fallout 3 or one of its questlines, and is therefore tangential to the location itself. Article, as it stands right now, is incomprehensible to readers who have no basic knowledge about Fallout 3, its themes and lores. OceanHok (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about how a quest that revolves solely around saving or destroying a single location of the game is "tangential to the location itself". It is in fact intrinsically about that location and the bomb in the middle of Megaton, saying it is unrelated to Megaton and only about "narrative design" is stretching it at the best of times.

Any lack of context is a surmountable problem, but I'm just not seeing "incomprehensible". The lede clearly explains what the article is about and where it's from - a fictional town from the Fallout 3 game. Are you trying to suggest people don't know what a town, fiction, or a video game is? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to belabor the above point, but is the original comment's suggestion that the significant coverage would not support an article on Megaton but would substantiate an article for The Power of the Atom? If the article meets deletion, this might be a way to salvage some sourcing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the idea of changing it to "The Power of the Atom" if truly necessary (in the vein of other similar articles like No Russian or Cat hair mustache puzzle that are solely about a "quest"), but I don't think it's necessary because there's so much discussion about Megaton itself as a town in the game world aside from the one quest. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. If the AfD is successful I will have a go of drafting - you're welcome to help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't actually believe the article should solely be about the quest, as AV Club and GamesRadar+'s articles are more focused on the town itself, so we'll see what other opinions say. There is the argument that if the article was solely about the town and not the quest, it wouldn't pass GNG, but I think the quest is so linked to the town that doesn't matter.

If it comes down to it remaining as an article, though, I don't mind modifying it in such a way. The quest itself did get comparatively more coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but just planning for contingencies. Despite the above I agree the entire point of the town's concept and design is the bomb in the centre of it, which is inextricably linked with the quest to detonate or defuse it. It would be a little baffling to talk about Power of the Atom without first talking about Megaton. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sergecross73 and OceanHok. I dug hard before chiming in to see what I could find through old development commentary and concept art in the event there's something to expand here, something to illustrate it as tangible beyond the game for readers to be able to comprehend it, but not really any luck.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand using the identified sources to cover the quest as well as the place. Sources 2 and 5 here are enough for a bare keep, and much of the rest demonstrate there's potential to write about the ethical in-game choice posed here. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE references[edit]

^ Penny, Rachel (December 2008). "Fallout 3". Official UK PlayStation Magazine. No. 26. p. 54.
^ "10 Ways to be a Complete Bastard in Fallout 3". PlayStation Magazine. No. 17. March 2009. p. 86.
^ Porter, Will (October 2007). "Welcome to Vault 101". PC Zone. No. 185. pp. 44–9.
^ "The 200 Greatest PlayStation Moments". Play. No. 200. January 2011. p. 29.
^ "Places: Megaton". Edge. Christmas 2011. pp. 126–7.
^ Cheng, William (2014). "A Time at the End of the World". Sound Play: Video Games and the Musical Imagination. Oxford University Press. p. 4252. ISBN 978-0-19-996997-5.
^ Bissell, Tom (2011). "Fallout". Extra Lives: Why Video Games Mattter. Vintage Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-307-47431-5.
^ Schrier, Karen; Gibson, David (2010). "Moral Sensitivity and Megaton in Fallout 3". Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play. Information Science Reference. pp. 41–45. ISBN 978-1-61520-845-6.
^ de Wildt, Lars; Aupers, Stef; Krassen, Cindy; Coanda, Iulia (2018). "'Things Greater than Thou': Post-Apocalyptic Religion in Games". Religions. 9 (6): 169.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Metal Apocalypse[edit]

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

It's just someone's website/blog hosted on Bandcamp. Neither source is reliable independent significant coverage, nor can I find such. Notability not established. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 14:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Textbook non-notability 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 16:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. I can only find links to the facebook page and other social media for the organization. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a random blog. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Cope[edit]

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

As noted in WP:NPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider borough councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage. Likewise, being a candidate for national office doesn't normally meet WP:NPOL, absent substantial coverage in secondary sources, and I can find only routine local press coverage. Wikishovel (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Wikishovel (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, county-level legislators, including borough councilors in this context, are not presumed to be notable. However, exceptions may apply if they receive significant coverage as outlined in WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, which is not the case for this individual. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. Bhivuti45 (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Wade[edit]

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

This is a WP:BLP1E. No notability outside of that. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Georgia (U.S. state), and Texas. TarnishedPath^talk 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO1E states The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor coverage Hi Bree! (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Delete will second the WP:BLP1E claim here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and not encyclopedic. We are not X formerly known as Twitter. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a perfect example of WP:BLP1E. There's actually not enough to even create a substantial article. AusLondonder (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG (the sources below aren't notable). Created by sockpuppet. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong Keep. This is a featured article in Indonesian Wikipedia with plenty of sources in that language.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Esprit15d: Upon examining the nomination discussions of this featured article on Indonesian Wikipedia, we'll find that the article on Indonesian Wikipedia is essentially a translation of the one on English Wikipedia. This conclusion is based on explicit statements made by the nominator. Ckfasdf (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Islam, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The individual's purported notability primarily arises from orchestrated efforts by a sockmaster and their accomplices to boost his profile across platforms, including Wikipedia. However, his importance appears to be largely restricted to Bengkalis Regency, with minimal recognition beyond this local area, let alone nationwide in Indonesia. While he may have some standing within the local Muslim scholar community, his broader significance is dubious. It's worth noting that the main source cited in the article, Saputra 2020, focuses on the 21 ulamas in Bengkalis regency rather than specifically highlighting him. Similarly, the other references in the article lacks substantial individual attention directed at him. Moreover, if he truly held significant status in Bengkalis regency, his name would likely be documented in regional history books. However, upon examining historical texts issued by ministry of education and culture, such as these in books 1 and 2, his name is notably absent. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He also lacks significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV, with the only sources about him being this book, and a passing mention in this website. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Esprit15d. This subject was one of the founding father of Riau province so there's no reason for the deletion just because his contribution focused in a regency. Apart from being the founding father of Riau, he was known for his contribution as captain in leading resistance movement with Indonesian National Army and for being a long time member of Masyumi Party. The subject also received a national award as a Regional Hero of Riau Province, i said Regional Hero an award which is considered as a national award because it must go through a strict file selection so that it can be determined by the House of Representatives and war veteran medal from the National Daily Council which is very sufficient to established the article notability. He also passed WP:GNG by received a significant coverage from atleast three different sources. And as for sources notability, is there a valid data to show that the source is not notable or is it just based on an assumption? Hi Bree! (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Comment struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator, fails WP:GNG.Dejaqo (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [42]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [43] [44]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) — 202.43.93.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass WP:SIGCOV. Found a book titled Toko Pejuang Daerah Riau which was published by Riau Province Social Service in August 2023 that did some depth coverage on him. The book explains his career and service journey starting from 1929 in the fields of politics, social organizations, and as theologist. If only there's a way to make that book available online. 36.69.119.29 (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) — 36.69.119.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WP:SOCKSTRIKE The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The chief argument for the Delete views here is the vague definition of what constitutes a "cult film", therefore failing to meet NLIST. Countering that, the Keep views pointed out that the list isn't of cult films, but of films described by reliable sources as "cult", which is well-defined criterion, similar to that of List of films considered the worst. This argument was not successfully rebutted by the Delete views. Whether the article needs to be renamed to reflect this distinction can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult films[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly devined, vague, subjective definiting. There is a huge number of films with huge popularity and large fanbase. The previous nom was noted for del unanimously and arguments remain the same. - Altenmann >talk 14:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You may have to tag all the individual articles. "Cult" is a very broad and somewhat vague term. All it means is that there are some people who really like it! That it retained popularity among some people after its release, or that it may not have a particularly broad fan base. But this is not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic. When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a movie, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description. This is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining such a large context-free list. Cult film could use some subsections for readability, but that's the place to go for significant examples and appropriate context of what makes them cult films. Navigating though two dozen pages with dozens of entries, most of whose own articles don't even mention what makes them cult films, is simply indiscriminate and not useful to readers. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other 27 articles linked to should be included in this. Anyway, as I said in the last two AFDs for this, if the reliable sources refer to it as a cult film, that's what we go by, not personal opinions. Every entry has a reference. Dream Focus 22:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the page has resisted THREE Afds it may be that there's no need for a 4th, I would have thought. Can we reformat the title of this page so that this is made clear: it's not the second nomination, it's the 4th! WP:NLIST mentions that lists are notable if their subject has received coverage as a set. It has. One click is enough imv to attest of the notability of this list:

https://www.rollingstone.com/interactive/lists-cult-classics-a-z/
https://www.theringer.com/movies/2021/1/25/22244344/cult-movies-ranking-top-50
https://www.timeout.com/film/the-best-cult-movies-of-all-time
https://www.bfi.org.uk/lists/top-your-watchlist-23-cult-films-1980s

And so on.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all listicles, and do little to establish notability. In any case, none of these pass the smell test for reliability, which I'll expand on more below. Hell, the Rolling Stone one isn't even about movies, but media in general. They include Andy Kaufman for crissakes. You are also mistaken; it only survived two of those AFDs...it was deleted the first time around. None of which particularly matters per WP:LASTTIME. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then click on the Google Books link above. You will find various books covering cult films as a set. The term is not subjective and can be well-defined (etc, etc, etc, etc). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these sources would be great for Cult film, but they don't justify 27 pages with 2,334 films listed without context. We should absolutely have a good discussion of key examples of films with the strongest cult followings, but a list of any film for which this descriptor has been used in passing just becomes indiscriminate with little utility. Even if people have provided a definition for the term, that doesn't mean it's used consistently or establishes it as a particular genre. That writer defined it, but Cult film is clear there are inclusive and exclusive definitions and that there is "difficulty in defining the term and subjectivity of what qualifies"! I think the article's descriptor "Overly broad usage of the term has resulted in controversy, as purists state it has become a meaningless descriptor applied to any film that is the slightest bit weird or unconventional; others accuse Hollywood studios of trying to artificially create cult films or use the term as a marketing tactic. Modern films are frequently stated to be an "instant cult classic", occasionally before they are released" shows how pointless this huge set of lists has become. Going though Template:Films by genre many of thes lists are quite large, but specific genres are clearer-cut and based on the films themselves rather than the various ways in which they could be received. Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as this is a vague, subjective descriptor term that's applied loosely, without any widely agreed-upon definition. That one random author happens to call something a cult classic is meaningless. There are no reliable sources for determining what qualifies as a cult film, because there are no criteria by which anyone can judge it objectively, and it's not as if there's any scholarly debate about what merits inclusion and what doesn't. The "sources" listed above are all fluff pieces of little value. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even by Wikipedia standards. Nuke it from orbit; it's the only way to be sure. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- what is the topic of this list? Is it "list of cult films" as the title implies? Because if so, WP:LISTCRIT states "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." And I think it's pretty clear that this most definitely fails here, as I and others have been trying to point out.
But wait!, you say (and DF says above), we just go by teh reliable sourcez!!one!. But this just circles back to the earlier point -- there are no reliable sources for determining "cult"ness of a film, because it's a vague, subjective term without a clear definition. So what?, you say again, if a source says it's a cult film, then that's an unambiguous criterion!. But now you've changed the topic of the list to "list of films that have been called cult films" instead. And that most definitely fails NLIST and is pretty WP:INDISCRIMINATE too.
You might think I'm splitting hairs or lawyering here, but I say this is a pretty vital distinction to make for keeping dreck lists like this out of Wikipedia, and for very good reason. Because invariably, lists like this turn into dumping grounds of every film anyone can find that the adjective "cult" has been applied to, and such lists have precisely zero encyclopedic value. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be a "dumping ground" if you manage the list correctly. Also, your reading of WP:LSC is incorrect, it specifically allows for Subjective criteria: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed.. GreenC 15:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a dumping ground. Even after all the pleading for keeping at the last AFD, nothing has been done to improve that, and there's no reason to expect it ever will. Ant it doesn't matter anyway, because this isn't a valid list in the first place, per LISTCRIT and LISTN as I noted immediately above. I think you're cherry picking LISTCRIT in such a way as to make it sound like it favors keeping, when it very plainly states what I said about clear, unambiguous criteria. And again, as I said, there are no reliable sources, because there is nothing even remotely approaching a standard definition of "cult"ness. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you, I would start a talk page discussion that proposes an extremely narrow inclusion criteria, then you can delete 90% of it and be happy. Then every time someone tries to add something again, and it doesn't meet the criteria, delete it. You have many options that don't require topic deletion. I do this all the time in many lists. I set tight criteria, delete everything else, and delete editors constantly who try to add things. This is what it takes. But deleting at a topic-level doesn't work because there is demand for a list like this and you will be wasting your time at AfD forever getting nowhere. Even if you delete the topic, it will probably get recreated all over again, because the demand is there. So you can either go with the flow and control it, or waste your time battling people and accomplishing nothing of value. And if this sounds unappetizing (it's a lot of work either way) walk away and ignore it, wait for someone else. -- GreenC 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what makes a film "cult" is very subjective and there isn't a widely accepted definition of the term. Even if reliable sources call it a cult film, that's still using that source's own definition of "cult" because again, it is not a clearly defined term in the slightest. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the WP:LISTCRITERIA here? Absent inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, this is fundamentally a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources. Many sources list cult films. -- GreenC 15:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer the question: what are the criteria here, exactly? TompaDompa (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See you on the talk page to work it out. -- GreenC 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, there are none at present. That's a major problem, I'm sure you will agree. List criteria are an indispensable part of creating articles like this. They are the foundation such lists must be built upon, not an optional step that can simply be skipped with the hope of working it out at a later point in time. It's the equivalent of writing a prose article with an undefined scope. Experience has shown (see e.g. Talk:List of fictional antiheroes#List criteria) that even when there is a genuine concerted effort to come up with some kind of reasonable list criteria post-AfD, a consensus set of criteria is not necessarily settled upon. Kicking this can down the road because of a presumption that proper criteria can in theory be created is a recipe for ending up back here in a few years with no progress done whatsoever—indeed, despite the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2 nomination), this is in fact the third AfD for the article (and the fourth AfD for this title—the first discussion resulted in deletion). There was a 2018 AfD that resulted in the article being kept—the idea being that the problems could be fixed by coming up with proper criteria. There was another AfD in 2019 that resulted in the article being split (for size reasons, I gather)—and with general agreement that significant additional cleanup is required per the closer. There was also talk page discussion in 2019 specifically about trying to come up with proper list criteria that went more-or-less nowhere—see Talk:List of cult films/Archive 1#Inclusion criteria and other matters. This makes the whole argument that we just need to work it out fall very, very flat to me—that approach demonstrably has not worked here. Compiling a list like this without proper criteria is plain WP:Original research by way of WP:Editorial synthesis even if the individual entries have sources—the conceit is that the listed films are somehow meaningfully part of a set, but what that set is is undefined and arbitrarily determined inconsistently by individual editors in the act of adding and/or removing entries. And that's not even getting into the fact that weak (i.e. overly broad) inclusion criteria for such lists turns the scope into what is essentially an equivocation, where different entries do not represent the same underlying concept, and where canonical/uncontroversial examples and fringe/controversial examples are treated equally in direct violation of WP:NPOV. TompaDompa (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:LSC, selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This doesn't meet the first two points. Cult is a vague and subjective term, and this list doesn't help by including super obscure films along with mainstream successes. Like, everyone's heard of or knows about 2001: A Space Odyssey or Schindler's List. This list does not have a clear inclusion category other than "a source called it cult once," and cult itself does not have a clear definition. Also WP:NOTTVTROPES. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LSC says: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources. Subjective lists are common on Wikipedia and permissible. There are many sources that are lists of cult films. Just need to adjust the criteria. Find the best lists of cult films, and include those that have multiple intersections and/or called a cult film by an academic source and/or etc.. -- GreenC 15:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films participants who have edited in the last five years: Minskist popper (talk · contribs), Agent 86 (talk · contribs), EnsRedShirt (talk · contribs), Erik (talk · contribs), and Eluchil404 (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (2nd nomination) participants: Rose Abrams (talk · contribs), Zxcvbnm (talk · contribs), XOR'easter (talk · contribs), Clarityfiend (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), and Pikamander2 (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult films (3rd nomination) participants: Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs), Gonnym (talk · contribs), GreenC (talk · contribs), Barkeep49 (talk · contribs), Betty Logan (talk · contribs), Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), and Clarityfiend (talk · contribs)
Cunard (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't about what people think are cult films, but what sources have called cult films. Thus it is not subjective nor unquantifiable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is subjective in the sense that what makes a film a cult film is not well defined in the slightest. I've seen multiple sources call very popular films that heavily profited cult films. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said above, the topic of "what people think are cult films" doesn't even remotely pass NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm and WP:NLIST. The Criterion Collection has a list,[45] as do Time Out,[46] Filmsite,[47] etc. Rolling Stone has a list of cult classics, which includes films,[48] as well as a readers' poll of the best cult movies.[49] There are books of cult films, such as Cult Movies and 100 Cult Films.[50] However, prune really dumb, badly sourced entries. Licence to Kill is not a cult film, and the sole "reference" doesn't say it is. Same with The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and no doubt many others, which I will begin to cull. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is listing what has been called in the real world a cult film. And the real world has listed cult films repeatedly. If someone is adding a film that no one in the real world has called a cult film, remove it. If needed, there can be more specific criteria for inclusion, like being on a reliably sourced list or having three individual authorities call it a cult film. But no need to delete a whole list. We would not delete lists of films by genre just because some films are not overtly part of a genre. The problem is with the additions, not the concept of a list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Zxcvbnm and others: refine the criteria, edit the list, but don't delete. -- GreenC 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment/plea to closer. Please note the pretty blatant influx of keep votes from the canvassing by Cunard above (yeah yeah, maybe not technically canvassing because all previous participants were pinged, but it was still canvassing in spirit). Also please don't be fooled by the numerical vote count that this caused and look at the strength of the arguments, which are heavily on the delete side. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "canvassing" when all participants are notified, not in spirit, not in any way. It's a risky gambit to notify everyone, because you don't know who will respond. Only after the fact, when votes have not gone your way, do you feel the "spirit" of canvassing. What if the votes had gone the other way in your favor? I doubt your would complain. And your wrong about the strength of arguments. WP:LSC is being quoted inaccurately, there is no rule against subjective topics. Nor is AfD a place to deal with cleanup. Have you tried to fix the article with a talk page discussion to more narrowly define the scope? Have you found it impossible to craft the article in a way you find acceptable? Or do you see no acceptable solution? Because lots of other people here see solutions. Basically this entire AfD rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- GreenC 17:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cult television shows[edit]

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

Vaguely defined, subjective classification. I bet every long enough soap opera has millions of viewers and large fanbase. - Altenmann >talk 13:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTDB. Even the wikipedia "article" (sub-section of a larger article) has a very vague definition of what cult media is. If there was some subjective criteria to determine whether media was cult or not, then this list might be of value. As it stands, it's just a random list of shows that someone once said has cult following, a term that is used indiscriminately in the media.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Cult" is a very broad and somewhat vague term. All it means is that there are some people who really like it! That it retained popularity among some people after its release, or that it may not have a particularly broad fan base. But this is not an intrinsic or distinguishing characteristic. When the inclusion criteria here is that one person used a certain term once to describe a show, that isn't necessarily a relevant commonality or a useful description. This is simply too broad of a concept to justify us maintaining a large context-free list. Cult_following#Television could be expanded with more examples in context, but when most of these articles don't even mention what makes them cult shows, this is simply indiscriminate and not useful to readers. I see so many long-running and popular shows here, this term is so widely used it's lost some of its meaning. Reywas92^Talk 21:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If reliable sources call everything on the list a cult television show, then that's what we go by, not personal opinions. Also it gets coverage. Click the reliable source search at the top of this AFD, and you immediately see https://variety.com/2023/tv/columns/favorite-cult-tv-shows-1235833379/ https://www.thestreet.com/investing/stocks/10-cult-tv-shows-netflix-should-revive-11275690 https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-lists/last-laugh-tracks-the-40-best-cult-tv-comedies-ever-21334/ and more. Dream Focus 01:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are reliable in their coverage of other things, but the linked articles merely call something "cult" without even bothering to define the term. And that's why we're having this discussion, because an encyclopedic article needs to be built on a verifiable definition. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a much clearer inclusion criteria can be agfeed, otherwise it is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The breadth of the term and wide contexts in which it may be used by sources make the list uninformative and unhelpful: 24 and Dragon Ball Z have no conceptual relation to one another simply because a reliable source or two described their respective fan communities as having a 'cult following'. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:LSC, selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. This doesn't meet the first two points. As one of the sources says, "exactly what makes a TV show a cult classic can be hard to pin down." The listing of several popular, mainstream shows such as Adventure Time and Family Guy along with obscure ones such as Aeon Flux doesn't help categorize it. See also WP:NOTTVTROPES. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have little to add beyond what the other "delete" voters have said above, and the WP:LSC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policies have been cited properly. Putting every single thing that somebody once called "cult" into a vague and never-ending list is not encyclopedic. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Unitarian Universalism#Organizations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship[edit]

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

Has had zero secondary sources since creation just under 20 years ago. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Searches bring up nothing for me. Cortador (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A merge or redirect to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations should be considered as an WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations where its mention can be expanded. I found mentions and directory entries in several books indicating this is a topic of interest but I did not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to World Affairs Councils of America#Individual councils. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. Not a single secondary source. PROD tag placed by @ArchCardinal: and removed by @Kvng:. Another PROD tag placed by @FactFindersEnigma: but removed as PROD is once-only. Article was created by COI SPA DFW WAC. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE - WP:NOR, WP:RSSELF self published by the World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World_Affairs_Councils_of_America#Individual_councils as preferred WP:ATD. Already listed there. No reliably sourced content to merge. Kvngr (talk}☎]] 00:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World_Affairs_Councils_of_America#Individual_councils: As a valid WP:ATD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satyakam Mohkamsing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability in the article, fails WP:GNG InDimensional (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Delhi, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does perform yet I found no reviews, awards, or independent coverage. The website is down. Appears to be a working professional without encyclopedic notability. gidonb (talk) 18:27, 23 March 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 13:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also found no coverage. He doesn't have an article on any wikis in other languages, either.— Moriwen (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicroSIP[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has limited media coverage, but I'm not sure how much the media would cover something so esoteric. There is robust discussion about it (which indicates wide usage) on platforms like reddit and Youtube.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm seeing a respectable amount of discussion in academic papers (e.g. here)— Moriwen (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's got decent industry adoption, as evidenced by several scholarly articles, as well as a very large number of how-to's. it's kinda esoteric, but still notable. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Snacks[edit]

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

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for corporations, as explained in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Charlie (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage of listing on the stock market, including from major national newspapers, indicate notability. Per WP:LISTED "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports." Examples include Fortune India, Economic Times newspaper, Business Today magazine including analyst comment, Mint business newspaper, another Economic Times article. These are just a handful of examples I found in a few minutes. The article is not irredeemably promotional. AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if there are any reports from independent analysts available yet since the company was just listed recently (48 hours ago). Also, this company being listed alone might not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia for notability. When we examine the references provided, they appear to be same IPO news repeatedly published in multiple Indian media outlets; WP:CHURN, WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Charlie (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Gujarat. Skynxnex (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all coverage is based on press releases around IPO, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGTRIV. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 29 March 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as what seems to be the case here where most of the references are cut-and-paste jobs from the company's IPO prospectus and the rest is mere commentary on their stock market performance with no in-depth "Independent Content" *about the company*. Perhaps in the future some analysts might publish something as suggested above, but I cannot locate anything on this company that meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Highking lacks in depth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Rosenberg[edit]

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

It looks like a resume. The only sources available mention him because he donated/invested a large amount related to research on Alzheimer's disease. I don't think this could satisfy notability and the coverage was not sustained. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the coverage described by nom is in local sources only. No grounds for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only of local relevance. --Melchior2006 (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. In 2007, I would have excused this gently, but in 2024, everyone knows that we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Iqrar Haroon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG as well WP:N - delete because its a resume, written by subject himself Special:Contributions/Agha_iqrar_haroon or someone close to them Special:Contributions/Aghaasadharoon.

Also see Dispatch News Desk. Saqib (talk · contribs) 10:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk · contribs) 10:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't see why this subject is listed under academics and educators. Does not satisty WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the listing is because the article asserts that the subject's accomplishments include research and teaching. Searching Google Scholar did find a small number of publications under author:ai-haroon, but nothing that would pass WP:PROF. I think we are going to have to look for notability other than through academic accomplishments; I agree he does not pass PROF. That said, I have not yet formulated an opinion on the subject's overall notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A wonderful author but didn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. The LEDs said he is a political analyst while it doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. Another called "him" a journalist—while I was looking per WP:BEFORE to see any coverage that is historic or passes WP:SIGCOV but to no avail, failing WP:NJOURNALIST. The article about a person just a run of the mill case. The sources doesn't say WP:SIGCOV and made-up like; the wholly sounds WP:UPE, where I can find much PROMO! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the nominator's reason here at the first AFD, it can be possibly recreation of deleted material though was a weak delete. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banas (1300)[edit]

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

No reliable sources or historians refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Banas," indicating that the title is an invented name. We do not invent names for military conflicts such as "Battle of X" or "Siege of X" unless they are mentioned in reliable sources WP:RS. As a result, the article fails to meet naming criteria.

Moreover, the military conflict is part of Alauddin Khalji's invasion of Chittorgarh and could potentially be merged with the Siege of Chittorgarh (1303) as a prelude. The conflict appears to be more of a skirmish than a full-fledged battle and is only briefly mentioned in scattered lines within sources, primarily as part of the Siege of Chittorgarh. Consequently, the article fails to meet the criteria of Wikipedia's general notability WP:GNG and naming standards.Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the battle isn't a part of siege of chittorgarh 1303. Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas

Khilji sultans in Rajasthan

Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction Narook (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is no mention of "Battle of Banas". We can't keep it. Thanks. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to say delete since it seems to fail notability guidelines. But, if it can be merged with the wider war/effort/offensive that it was a part of, that would be better. If not, delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information about the battle comes from the Hammira Mahakavya, whose historical reliability is debatable. The salvageable content is already part of Alauddin Khalji's conquest of Ranthambore#Death of Bhimasimha. utcursch | talk 14:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source used for this battle seems unreliable if the creator could provide reliable sources this battle could be kept

WhiteReaperPM (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Other than the nominator, none of the participants are calling for deletion. Views are split between Keep and Merge, although more than one merge target has been proposed. The decision of what, if any, to merge, and to where, is an editorial one, and discussion can continue on the article's Talk page. This decision doesn't require an AfD to adjudicate it. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event[edit]

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

Just because this game had a specific branding of "75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event", that doesn't make it notable enough for a separate article. There doesn't look to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this match, and the match itself has just WP:ROUTINE coverage. All of the "Background" section is not directly relevant to the match and could be covered in separate articles about the teams' cricketing histories, and the match details are already covered in Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not necessarily strongly - I guess you could make the argument this would be better merged, but there was a lot of coverage of the political portion of the event. I am finding some sustained coverage, especially because Albanese was invited back for the final. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The match did recieve significant coverage in March 2023 in India. The series article you mentioned does not have much as compared to the content of this article. Moreover, if you do see, that series article itself is in an ongoing split discussion. Similar events like Namaste Trump have pages; and this was followed by an entire match.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23; unlike Namaste Trump or Howdy Modi or the bajillion other gimmicky diplomatic events, this one isn't independently notable. Coverage is routine and retrospective coverage is basically non-existent. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is already in an existing WP:SPLIT discussion, I dont deem it appropriate for the contents of this article to be merged as a singular match when they are contemplating seperating entire tours.
- It did recieve decent coverage as well as some political fallout. As stated above, I support keeping
Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That split discussion has had no comments for a year and is not caused by the article being too long, so isn't relevant to whether this article should be merged into it or not. There's also many choices for merge targets, including articles about Australia-India cricket and relations. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that merge discussion hasnt had comments for a year, plumping this content there will make it worse.

As stated by @SportingFlyer, and me; there was political coveage, I have tried to add a bit more. It was more than a cricket match, and I have included all the valid information on the trip.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That split discussion centers on whether it was one or two distinct tours. If it gets split, this can be merged to whichever tour the Test series was part of. AryKun (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still does not mean this article cant exist, per my existing points Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302 I beg to differ on your original point. The event getting unique branding preparations and then the event actually getting carried out constitute an article here. By that logic, I mighth have seen half a dozen good articles with less relevance than this; but thats the point - its all relevant, valid and cited information. It has failed GAN's but the reasons were for the article to improve further (which it has), and not actually take it down. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 as this event was about diplomatic relations between two cricket playing countries when Australian team was in India 2023 for test matches against India. This event is not notable for a separate page with such title but fits best on page Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 where a segment can be created about this celebration. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page is about a test series. Having so much information about a single test is unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page.

That particular page in question is already cluttered as it is. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above; it doesn't help that the article is in extremely poor condition—essentially a badly-written, promotional political puff piece, which is unacceptable. There are only a couple of reliable sources which provide SIGCOV of the events, and they all fall under WP:ROUTINE. Every other non-sporting citation does not contribute to notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain this? How exactly is it a promotional junk piece? Each source is cited to the best citation available, and contains all the information about the event and all the unique things taking place Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"all of the unique things taking place" can you really not hear yourself? Now find sources which show notability: read what WP:GNG says, and explain why the sources fulfil those criteria. Remember, you are arguing that the "75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event" is notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONING

Understanding the reason to merge - Topic relevant for standalone article

I would like to thank editors @AirshipJungleman29@RangersRus@AryKun@Joseph2302 for commenting here. I would like to raise some points here.

This was not just a cricket match: It was a 75-year anniversary celebration of cricket relations between the two countries + of international bilateral relations + of the success of an educational agreement. All of that information is included. It would be unfair to deem it as just a cricket match article.
Notwithstanding the above fact: The description of the entire match has also been included as it was at the start of the match which was played. So has the toss coin, the jersey exchange and the cap handing.
This event did have significant political coverage in India and Indian media; as well as some political fallout, and I as the editor of this page have done my best to add citations and backgrounds.
As stated before, the series article already has the required information of ten matches - it will be unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page to contain detailed information of this event. On top of it, even though it was a year ago, its undergoing a split discussion (with majority voting in favour), furthering the argument of not plumping this content onto that page.
This page has failed a GAN not for lack of nobility, but simply lack of citations which has then since been changed as much as possible, and I as, one of the principal editors currently, will constantly keep looking to improve the article and take suggestions even after the conclusion of this discussion.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion Pharaoh496; your behaviour is becoming disruptive and your attitude towards this page is beginning to verge on WP:OWN. I have hatted the above monologue which adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if merged, would Australia–India relations#Cricket relations be a sensible/better target? It's already mentioned there, and so a few more sentences there would suffice. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that might be a good alternative target. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23: the event itself is not notable enough to have a separate wiki page. WP:1E ChunnuBhai (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was getting ready to close this with a Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 until I saw on that article that there is a recommendation that this article should be split into more than one article. So, I'm not sure that it's the ideal Merge target article and wanted to get a second opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment in the relist, this is a valid WP:SPLIT. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The split discussion is for a completely different issue- whether it was 2 separate series or not. And the split discussion is stale, so shouldn't impact this possible merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, SportingFlyer needs to reread Liz's comment. Regardless, I fail to see why a split discussion would mean that the article is not the right target. If it is split, then the merged information will go to the Australian cricket team in India in 2023 article, which will incorporate most of the current page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29, well, I just wanted to bring this fact to this discussion in case it made any difference to participating editors' opinion. Apparently, it doesn't. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything wrong with this page as it stands, and the page we want to merge to is too large. It's pretty simple. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ikoku[edit]

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

I am doubtful of passing GNG. Per Before gave articles linking only to her campaign like this one although have no results nor passes WP:NPOL. SIGCOV is also a problem and judging from the media aspect, the subject fails ANYBIO. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kehinde Ipaye[edit]

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

I can't find much SIGCOV to establish notability. Almost all the sources if not all were about his company which are too not notable per WP: ORG. No way yet for meeting GNG. Fails business people guideline for notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and per nominator. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sad pop[edit]

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

Not a real genre. The sources are actually discussing sad pop songs, not "Sad pop" as a genre. A cursory search online supports this, with all articles simply discussing music that is sad. Anarchyte (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Popular culture. Anarchyte (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mach61 07:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. As an alternative to deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and authority[edit]

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

This is an essay not an encyclopedia article. None of the sources are about this topic, with each being used to back up a string of arguments used to make this article entirely from wp:or and wp:synth

If any books ABOUT Mormonism and authority come out, such an article should exist then. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. There should be an article on this, but all the content here is SYNTH from primary sourcing or misuse of reliable second sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT: mildly interesting essay as it stands, but not what Wikipedia's for. AryKun (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify. The article as it now stands is undeniably an essay that needs to be completely rewritten. I recently acquired several excellent sources on this exact topic, and I will be working on this article as I can in order to improve it, but I do request that is not deleted until such changes are taken into consideration. As the OP hinted at regarding books, these include two books which I have added to the article. Rollidan (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per others, I do not object to draftifying or WP:TNT and starting over. Rollidan (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Would a resolution be to move this article to Draft space where it can be improved over time?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I'm inclined to support deletion because the article reads more like an essay, which doesn't fit within WP guidelines as outlined in WP:NOTESSAY. However, Rollidan has pointed out that there may still be a chance to improve the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify, there may be a notable topic under there but TNT would likely be needed to find it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5. Creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, but there's also a rough consensus here to delete and nobody has advanced an argument for retaining this article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Moeis[edit]

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

The first sentence in the lead section of the article explicitly states that the individual is "known as the husband of actress Sandra Dewi", suggesting his notability is primarily derived from his relationship with a well-known figure. However, according to WP:INVALIDBIO, merely being associated with a notable person, such as a spouse, does not warrant a standalone article.

Additionally, although the individual later becomes an alleged suspect in a corruption case, WP:PERPETRATOR specifies that the crime must be unusual or noteworthy to merit a standalone article. Furthermore, WP:BLPCRIME cautions against including material that suggests an individual has committed or is accused of a crime, unless there is a secured conviction. In this case, it's important to note that he is still a suspect and has not been convicted yet. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and really no substantial coverage of the subject generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For all the reasons stated above. 「HypeBoy」^TALK 06:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Iyobo[edit]

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

Fails GNG and no SIGCOV. Being a head of a church regards a notable one per WP:CLERGY and verifiable by multiple reliable sources. BEFORE found nothing even with different change of related name on google news per WP: BISHOP. It is noteworthy to say: it's neither written as an Encyclopedic material nor a notable reference since it lacks context also to identify WP:N All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also did not pass WP: NAUTHOR and WP: JOURNALIST. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WODR-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another very short-lived DTV America/HC2/Innovate station whose paper existence didn't even make it a decade (and its operational history was even more razor-thin). This one was apparently so under-the-radar that the bulk nomination of many HC2 station articles did not include this station. There is no way any significant coverage is on — or anywhere near — the table here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I expanded the article, but I struggled to find anything about this station because like Edge Spectrum, these mid-market stations never stay still and pretty much stay on the air or toll until they get to the market's tower site, and if they can't they just give up; I didn't even know until now that its final tower site was not even in market range of Wausau and instead covered Green Bay (and not well), like some of DTVAHC2's other 'voyager' translators (e.g. the Springfield, Illinois station somehow in St. Louis); since it didn't get to Scray Hill, DTV gave up and turned in the license; if even I miss this station's demise in my own backyard (I regularly scan stations and never caught this one), you know nobody ever knew about it outside an engineer-for-hire. Nate • (chatter) 03:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dyario[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2010 and the digital newspaper itself seems to be dead since 2015. No references found from GNews, GNews Archives and GBooks. Note that there might be Spanish language sources that I can't read/found. --Lenticel ^(talk) 04:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 04:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Basic search revealed nothing with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: The corresponding spanish article have three independent citation which shows it is likely notable but I can't find it passing WP:SIGCOV.GAGIWOR (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The recent RFC on athletes ties my hands, we have to abide by the guidelines it set and those editors arguing for Deletion have rejected the sources brought forward by those editors advocating Keep as being ROUTINE coverage. The new policy rules out even a "No consensus" closure. If an editor would like this article draftified or moved to their User space, let me know or put in a request at WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Houbeib[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A regular national team player who plays in a league that gets pretty much zero regular coverage. He has no chance of SIGCOV even though he is clearly notable for Mauritanian football. Anwegmann (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero regular coverage" and "no chance", you mean coverage in English, right? I wouldn't know how to conduct a meaningful search in his alphabet, but he featured at the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations just a month ago. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance at 2024 AFCON speaks to my point, I think. The Mauritanian and Iraqi leagues don't receive much coverage from trustworthy media sources—French, English, or Arabic—and individual Mauritanian players in the local league and more "obscure," for lack of a better word, leagues receive even less. My point is that a strict interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, without taking larger context and performance into account, skews coverage on Wikipedia away from non-Western players, venturing into WP:BIAS territory. Because Houbeib has appeared more than a dozen times for a national team and appeared in a major continental tournament recently that was broadcast around the world, to me, his notability is established. Would I like to see more significant coverage in classical media sources? Yes, of course. But in this case, I don't think it's required to keep the article. This isn't a third-division semi-pro player who represented his country once at under-19 level. This is a regular player for a national team that qualified for and played in a continental tournament. Anwegmann (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just made aware of this AfD in another discussion circling around the possibility of inherent notability due to national team caps. If anything, this provides some precedent for what I'm saying. I acknowledge, though, that 15 national team caps is a bit low for inherent notability, given the precedent established in the linked AfD. That said, though, appearance in the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations reasonably adds to this player's notability. I would be willing to change my vote to "draftify" if we can reach some kind of consensus about this. Anwegmann (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the cap tally is now 21. I also believe that we are now far, far into WP:BIAS territory. There is a difference between a performing team like Mauritania and insignificant countries (within football) such as Belize and Nepal. But, alas: sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't fully agree that there is a difference between national teams, as they each have fundamental value in world football, I agree with your sentiment and overall point here. Houbeib continues to appear for a national team that recently performed in a continental tournament. This is well into the realm of WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which guideline states this? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if even the editors advocating to keep this article acknowledge there is not and will not be IRS SIGCOV then clearly a standalone article is not warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - coverage found here (signing), here (signing), here (contract extension), and probably many more Arabic-language sources. All I did was search the player's Arabic name (الحسن سالم احويبيب) and some immediate results came back. I can't read or understand Arabic so my search ended after these three articles— but I'm sure there's way more. Then, we need to consider that the bar for Mauritanian footballers' coverage is lower than for Western players, as there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general. Lastly, this guy has made 20+ caps for a prominent African national team, and has competed at a MAJOR tournament. The evidence of coverage existing, the threshold being at a certain level, and the prominence of the player all bring me to the conclusion that article needs to be kept & improved. I'd even suggest a page move to fix currently incorrect page title. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman and The Herald: Sources found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should ping JoelleJay. I simply relisted. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are the definition of routine, trivial transactional coverage, not to mention non-independent since almost everything in them is quoted from the club. And the first two are essentially identical! Why would you link to those sources as evidence of SIGCOV if you didn't even read them?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these sources don't appear enough. Giant Snowman 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman and JoelleJay: Y'all have your bar set way too high for coverage of this player. You must remember that the subject is a Mauritanian footballer—not English, German, but Mauritanian. Also, playing at a major tournament like AFCON definitely means that Arabic-language sources exist... deleting this article would start a slippery slope in which hundreds non-Western articles would get deleted simply due to a lack of easily-findable coverage by editors that exclusively use Latin-alphabet keyboards. Take some time to do a proper Arabic-language search instead of bashing this article and not giving it much thought.
In my opinion, the surface-level presence of Arabic-language sources shows that relative to the depth of all coverage of Mauritania-related topics, this player has some kind of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more digging shows plenty of stuff about him popping up. this, this, and notably this. Yes, there is a routine feel to the coverage, but there's just a point where you have to understand that the bar is not as high as it would be for a player playing in Western Europe. The fact that there's just this many articles on a relatively obscure Mauritanian footballer says something. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is deleted, we could probably delete 50% of all articles about footballers from Arabic-language countries where media coverage is harder to find. That's not a good thing. I understand there are deletionists, but this isn't an article that should be deleted, especially considering how prominent this player is in African football. (Yes, competing at two AFCONs is quite prominent, I think). Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general is literally why more athletes from Western countries are notable. If a subject doesn't get IRS SIGCOV then by definition it is not notable! What you are arguing is for us to reinstate presumptions of coverage--or even inherent notability--based on the subject reaching some arbitrary, subjective level of achievement, but such presumptions have been repeatedly and near-unanimously rejected.
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 54#Renewed proposal for association football (soccer)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 55#Should we soften the phrase "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."?
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 52#Proposed Notability criteria track and field athletes (see WP:NTRACK) The community has rejected participation-based notability criteria even when a single appearance in some league or tournament empirically predicts SIGCOV 100% of the time; there is thus 0% chance of us accepting any criterion whose SIGCOV predictive power isn't supported by any evidence at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 RfC made it clear the requirement for SPORTCRIT SIGCOV applies to all athletes, regardless of location or time. We do not change our bar for coverage based on where the subject is from. Conferring notability to some geographical subset of subjects via the exact same routine, trivial, and non-independent sources we dismiss for subjects everywhere else in the world is patronizing and would only encourage applying those same standards to progressively less encyclopedic tiers of Western subjects. And presuming actual SIGCOV does exist based only on the presence of such low-quality non-GNG sources is exactly what was deprecated through wide consensus two years ago.

The 4th source you link is identical to source #3, #5 is trivial coverage of the same topic, and literally the only secondary independent coverage of Houbeib in #6 is Al-Zawraa player, Mauritanian Al-Hassan Ahouibib, joined the team's training today, Monday, after the end of his vacation, which was granted to him with the cancellation of last season. The rest is taken directly from the club. This is the case for all of the sources you've linked: a couple sentences of routine transactional announcements interspersed with "the club said [blahblahblah]" and more general updates on the club as a whole. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this article aught to be deleted, I urge you to start nominating every single other similar player article that has "less" notability than this guy. You'll find that there's much more coverage of this guy than some other players who survived AfD in the past or that have articles that happen to exist despite probably failing GNG/SPORTCRIT. I stand firmly in my belief that we're being too harsh here and that the coverage is enough. Also, how did you brush by these sentences?
1. Al-Hassan Ahwaibib is considered one of the reasons for the strength of Al-Zawraa’s defense during the past season, due to its consistent level during the tournament.
2.Huwaibib plays as a libero. He played great matches with Al-Zawraa last season, and succeeded in convincing coach Ayoub Odisho to renew with the team and lead the defense line...
These seem like notable secondary independent coverage of the subject. That's three different sources offering secondary coverage. Who says there isn't more? I can't properly do an Arabic-language search and this is what I found easily. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find significant, Arabic-language coverage, then great., I'll happily re-consider. Giant Snowman 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that I have been extremely consistent in supporting deletion of hundreds of subjects with this level of coverage. We are slowly working through the backlog of poorly-sourced articles, so just because many still exist doesn't mean their standards of coverage are endorsed.
Those are among the routine, trivial sentences that I referenced above. We would not consider someone in the 5th tier of English football to meet GNG with such sources, we should not lower our standards just because you think footballers in certain regions deserve articles. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I can't close this as Keep if there is no SIGCOV because the decision would be immediately taken to WP:Deletion review where the closure would be overturned. The possibility of Draftifying was raised, would this be an acceptable outcome until better sourcing can be located, perhaps in Arabic media sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are trivial and routine. If the subject does not receive significant coverage, there is nothing that can be done. Additionally, the argument pointing to the existence of other articles related to players from Arabic-speaking countries is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

Industrial Insect (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but routine transfer and signing news popping up. There are many many places online where somone can view the statistics and team history of a soccer player; Wikipedia needn't be one of them. Mach61 — Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that someone would say that Mauritius is an Arabic-speaking country. There's probably more Arabic spoken in many western countries than Mauritius! Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Why do you keep mentioning Mauritius? We're talking about a Mauritanian player. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - Mauritanian not Mauritian. Well, I should stop searching the Mauritian media! Aren't I the fool! Nfitz (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's nothing in WP:ROUTINE that says that articles about transfers are routine coverage; the example given there is "sports score" and "sports matches". If one wants to play by the "rules" that no longer make an international player (let alone with 20+ caps for his nation), one needs to not exaggerate the other "rules". Nfitz (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if transactional announcements weren't overwhelmingly considered routine by editors at AfD, as you well know, the sources above also fail independence by simply repeating what club officials have said, and fail SIGCOV by being trivial. Do you have any evidence of actual IRS SIGCOV or are you really claiming that the sources above that even other keep !voters acknowledge is routine and non-significant actually meet GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is what's in policy and guidelines - not what a few editors have pushed. I don't believe the claims of lack of independence are correct - how is this not independent? I'll admit photographs of him playing in major Canadian newspapers don't count for anything - other than my surprise. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz, the issue is that these short articles are primary sources (see WP:NEWSPRIMARY), and primary sources do not establish notability. Unlike secondary sources, they contain no original analysis or synthesis of existing primary sources Mach61 01:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see User talk:Mach61, how the that is an primary source. Also, can you please explain why Rimsport and Cridem are not independent. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz May you please stop trying to preform a Gish gallop and actually address my argument. I said nothing about independence, and I explained why I thought those sources were primary. Mach61 12:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - so rude. Why? I do not understand why you think that Rimsport and Cridem are primary sources. I don't see where you've explained why they are primary sources - you've simply stated they are. They don't look primary to me. Nfitz (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz Most every source you've brought so far is primary because they are original materials that are close to an event. As explained at WP:NEWSPRIMARY, a newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events. I called what you are doing a Gish gallop because you are not actually adressing the reasoning behind the arguments I have made, but are merely stating them to be incorrect without elaboration. Cheers, Mach61 20:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments? What arguments? You simply said it was primary, without even trying to explain why. And why pretend I've provided multiple sources, when I provided one, that despite multiple polite requests, you won't even discuss. This is not okay - you can't just make stuff up in AFD, User:Mach61. Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain (or retract) User:Mach61? Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No 🗿 Mach61 23:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage
Do you seriously need the policy to spell out "routine news coverage of announcements such as sports transaction announcements, ..."?
Someone else quoting/relaying information from primary non-independent sources does not make that information secondary and independent.
What you link now was not among the "sources above" that I referenced in my comment. It is still clearly routine transactional news of dubious independence--more than likely it is purely derived from the club's press release. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy mention sports scores and sports matches. And that's the test for having an article about a match; not even for using it as a source. The article hardly reads like a press release, as it includes too much context. I don't think you can use a hypothesis of it being a reprint of a press release that you can't find as the basis for anything here. And really - 20 international caps - is this the hill to have a borderline debate about? Given the lack of online Mauritanian news, we should probably defer this until there's a good database of Mauritanian news. Nfitz (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quoting ROUTINE. I am quoting WP:NOTNEWS policy. Newspapers report on every transfer announcement with similar depth and little independent secondary contribution, with almost all facts derived from the club's press release. That is the definition of "routine news coverage of announcements ... [and] sports".
We have multiple people advising that Mauritanian news doesn't provide SIGCOV of this topic in general. We don't have any evidence to suggest otherwise, and we had global consensus to deprecate any presumption that such coverage exists based on number of matches or tournament appearances. JoelleJay (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I follow that logic to the end, doesn't it mean not mentioning any transfers of players in most articles - unless like something tragic happens during the transfer. Nfitz (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Nikolaychuk[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are OBITs with all the normal problems. BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason to delete this article Salfanto (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What could keep the article from being deleted? Also I got a notification saying that the article had been reviewed Salfanto (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Salfanto (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) (you can only cast one "vote" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The reason for deleting this article is stated in the deletion nomination. There has been no rebuttal of these points of policy and simply stating "Keep" is not an effective argument on why they are not accurate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences#Colleges granted affiliation by KUSMS to run MBBS courses. (wow, that's a long redirect) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Medical College[edit]

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

Contested draft, so we're here. No evidence of N:ORG level coverage for this private medical school nor its journal. Explicitly do not recommend Drafting since creator has history of moving articles back Star Mississippi 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Medicine, and Nepal. Star Mississippi 17:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tough one. Only a few short years ago, we used to keep high schools and colleges if they existed. This one definitely exists. And it's not any old college, it's a medical college. Nepal doesn't have many of those. So, there is no way this isn't notable. But, WP:NEXIST stopped working as an argument a long time ago. And educational institutions come under WP:NORG now. I don't think we should stop anyone working on this in draftspace. For the mainspace, in the meantime, the best thing would be to redirect it to Kathmandu_University_School_of_Medical_Sciences#Colleges_granted_affiliation_by_KUSMS_to_run_MBBS_courses. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly do not recommend Drafting since creator has history of moving articles back. It does not matter at AFD because AFD consensus to draftify would be enforceable with admin tools. Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Mississippi, what do you think about redirecting as suggested above and allowing the creator to work in draftspace and use AFC if they want, with the understanding that anything AFD finds consensus for would be enforceable with admin tools? Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that. But the problem is it's not really enforceable since AfC is optional. But fingers crossed. Star Mississippi 03:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notable enough. There are few medical colleges in Nepal approved by Government of Nepal and Nobel Medical college is one of them and they have produced many doctors to the society. In fact to defend with it i would like to provide some reliable sources here[51][52][53]. DIV IN E

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Video scaler#AI upscaling. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI video upscaler[edit]

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

Obviously AI generated WP:OR piece and there doesn't appear to be any actual coverage of this topic other than ads or questionable "top 10 best ai video upscalers 2024" type of lists. WP:JUNK StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wonder if there's a good redirect target to either video scaler or image scaling. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ai-written article about AI programs? I'm surprised there aren't sources about this, I don't see any sources, other than perhaps articles where it's briefly mentioned in hardware reviews for example. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see value in redirecting versus BLOWITUP. Article is oddly similar to a "10 Best" blog post at the Cyberlink website, about products which claim to use AI for video scaling. I can't find SIGCOV in secondary sources about the use of AI in video scaling sufficient for a separate article, just product pages. Wikishovel (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect and merge if sourced properly~~ Redirect to Video scaler#AI upscaling – Rings bells of AI written, but AfD is not for cleanup. While not specifically written as "AI video upscaler", searching AI video upscaler on Google News gives us titles like Adobe unveils AI-driven Project ResUp for video upscaling, This YouTuber Upscaled a Scene From an 1895 Film to 4K 60FPS Using AI, others of that sort. Redirects are cheap, and this is a valid redirect in my opinion. TLA^tlak 11:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not that I suggest renaming to AI upscaler. TLA^tlak 11:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest cleaning up and convert to a section in an "AI upscaler" article. Hym3242 (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hym3242, there is no AI upscaler. Video scaler and Image scaling are the targets that have been mentioned in the discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Video scaler: per TLA. - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 14:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm questioning the wisdom of merging content that is suspected of being AI-generated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, do not merge to Video scaler#AI upscaling. - I added some (human generated) text, so now it's mentioned there. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, human. TLA^tlak 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, don't merge—this seems like a sensible solution. This article adds absolutely nothing of value to the 'pedia, or the world. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Although there is no second "delete" opinion, the "keep" opinions - with the exception of that by GMH Melbourne - are poorly argued: they assert notability, but do not cite specific sources or address the quality of the sources offered by others, which has been contested. Sandstein 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources that discuss the subject in depth. The current cited sources include passing mentions, a contributor piece, and an announcement of her inclusion in the 100 Women of Influence 2016 list, which does not automatically confer notability. Although a Google news search yielded some sources, they primarily consist of passing mentions or self-published materials, none of which establish independent notability. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. GSS ^💬 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article in Sydney Morning Herald is rather strong, but yes, Google News is mostly WP:PRIMARY.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.smh.com.au/business/workplace/headdd-20170424-gvrdku.html		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/women-of-influence/why-networking-is-vital-when-starting-a-company-20190717-p52851	~ Basically just quotes.		~ Rather short section of the article.	~ Partial
https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2016/10/05/79021/green-recognised-on-women-of-influence-list/			Routine.	✘ No
https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11	paid promotion as noted by Scottyoak2	? Doesn't seem to be an established magazine?		✘ 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}}.

TLA^tlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source ~~article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format~~, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS ^💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS ^💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?

Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ : if these are the same person [54] and [55], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLA^tlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article ~~self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green"~~. GSS ^💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating.

04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS ^💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [56] [57] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.

Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS ^💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding this potential source: https://apacentrepreneur.com/magazine-digital/vol-11-issue-10.html#features/11 ... APAC Entrepreneur is solicited advertising. Their article subjects are expected to pay to be included on the site. You might find this interesting: [58]. And this: [59]. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fixed up the table. TLA^tlak 12:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is within WP:GNG. Good sourcing. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ:, could you please highlight which sources you believe are good? Numerous sources are discussing a different individual with the same name, leading to confusion. Additionally, there are a few sources consisting of interviews. Thank you. GSS ^💬 17:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems some disagreement on the suitability of the source material. Additional analysis on this point would be very useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Nathan N Higgers (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS ^💬 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nassau County, Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District[edit]

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

No secondary sources and few appear available. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and Florida. AusLondonder (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nassau County, Florida. WP:ORGCRIT is the wrong set of criteria for evaluating a soil and water conservation district. Such a district is a part of local government with its own elected leaders, decision-making and finances, rather like the port authorities some cities have. In this case, relatively little information is available online, partly because any Google hits for it are hidden by the multiple hits for Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District in Nassau County, New York state. The New York district probably could be its own article. The Florida district could be merged into the article on its county. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If for some reason, an editor would like to include content from this deleted article in that OR page, contact your local administrator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Five grains in world culture[edit]

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

This isn't really a list article: it's someone's theory about how the juxtaposition of the number "five" and whatever gets translated to the English word "grain" is somehow significant. I think we would need a source for that significance, rather than a list of things chosen by the author in a fit of original research. Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Mangoe (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret as it’s fascinating but a textbook case of WP:OR. Mccapra (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a wild-growth abnormality of a disambiguation page that is contrary in almost every way to MOS:DAB and while it could be fixed, there is a "five grains" disambiguation page at Five grains (disambiguation), so the result would be a duplicate of that page at the wrong name—or—the page is a spectacular free-association style failure of a set-index article, and we can not and should not have such a set index article and in this respect the page can not be fixed. I am against redirecting because the name is nonsensical.—Alalch E. 12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless we can copy some of it to WP:OR as an example, after all it's CC-by-SA so why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could move to a subpage of Wikipedia:No original research/Examples.—Alalch E. 15:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons stated above. The article is a pretty clear case of WP:OR and a wonderful example of what not to do when writing an article. ArkHyena (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The article has no secondary sources and editors arguing to Keep it have not located any themselves. Making an accusation against the nominator is no substitute for finding reliable sources if you'd like to preserve an article on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMAC (FM)[edit]

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

Small town station on air for less than a decade. No secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Oklahoma. AusLondonder (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a possible redirect, if this is ever created, to Oklahoma Catholic Radio. This network of stations owned KMAC and probably ran it as a rebroadcaster of their statewide service. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At the very least, there's virtually no way this station garnered its own significant coverage. (I doubt the Oklahoma Catholic Radio network in general had much of any either, but that's probably another matter.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No evidence that OP has exhausted the steps set forth by WP:BEFORE. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a good faith rationale for keep. I have looked for sources, and found nothing. I did find a Taco Bell franchise of the same name which seems to be more notable than this station. I presume you looked as well? AusLondonder (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neutralhomer, and maybe others knowledgable about the radio industry can look at the recent spurt of prods of radio stations by the nominator, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Data Breaches of United States Citizen Data[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:CROSSCAT. I don't see significant independent coverage of this specific categorization. While List of data breaches clearly passes LISTN, and a theoretical List of data breaches in the United States might pass LISTN, I don't think this one does. While the sourcing is good, they're all about specific data breaches, not this grouping. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and United States of America. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Викидим (talk) 06:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, noting as well that the calculation of breaches as being "largest data breaches of US citizen data" appears to be pure OR--the listed entries are described in sources as affecting US-based companies/customers, but at no point do they attempt to quantify the amount of US citizens affected by the breach. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, this category does not meet the WP:LISTN and WP:CROSSCAT criteria.Dejaqo (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify then create Redirect from this page title.‎. I think if a simple Revert to a Redirect is done as proposed, the edit can easily be reverted by a passing editor. Also, if there is a Redirect, moving a draft article back to this page title will require assistance from a page mover or admin so it's not a casual move back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Burkhard Garweg[edit]

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

I think that this article should be reverted to its pre-existing redirect to Members_of_the_Red_Army_Faction#Third_generation_Red_Army_Faction_(1982–1993) on WP:BLPCRIME and GNG considerations. In contrast to other 3rd generation RAF members Daniela Klette and Ernst-Volker Staub, Garweg has not actually been convicted of any crime. Coverage is fleeting, exclusively in the context of suspected activities in the third-generation RAF, and the stronger of the cited sources, Der Spiegel solely frames criminal charges against Garweg beyond association with the third-generation RAF in attribution to the authorities rather than as statements of fact, as well as stating that little is known about Burkhard Garweg (Über Burkhard Garweg ist nur wenig bekannt). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Politics, Terrorism, and Germany. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree, this is certainly of interest to researchers of the Red Army Faction and their activities post-1998. Seeing as there has recently been news related to the attempted arrest of Garweg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/german-prosecutors-urge-red-army-faction-suspects-to-surrender, and he remains on the EUROPOL "Most wanted list" https://eumostwanted.eu/index.php/garweg-burkhard, there are enough sources online to make this article worthwhile. As for this page being deleted on WP:BLPCRIME, I'll point out that many of the people "at large" in FBI Most Wanted Terrorists have never been convicted in court either and have similar amounts of news coverage as Burkhard Garweg. WintermuteKnows (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you've linked contain basically no biographical information about Garweg other than the fact that he is wanted by the German authorities. The same cannot be said of the entires on FBI Most Wanted Terrorists that have their own articles. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I can only check one of the three sources since two are paywalled but can AGF when Rosguill says there isn't much significant coverage and there isn't much on the two sources supplied by WintermuteKnows. This may change in future so I don't think delete is the best option, which leaves me at draftify so as to remove from public-facing space. Mujinga (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, or at least draftify until it's been rewritten. Most of this article is about actions of the 3rd generation RAF that he may or may not have participated in (the article literally says he probably joined the RAF, the cited source does not mention him by name, and the article also says it's unclear who actually did what with the RAF). If he's notable for being on Europol's most wanted list, then the article should be about the robberies and whatnot he's wanted for, and not contain a bunch of info on politically motivated killings that he may or may not have been involved with (you'd need some serious sources to meet BLPCRIME for assassination when his Europol listing is for aggravated robbery). As it stands, this really feels like an article about several people and the terrorist group they (probably, using the wording of the article) joined, not the actual subject of the article. EasyAsPai (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prove has today been published linking Garweg to Daniela Klette see here. (Apart from that he is a personality in the international media with detailed information.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like significant coverage: In het huis van de gearresteerde RAF-terrorist Daniela Klette zijn sporen gevonden van twee andere gezochte RAF-terroristen; Ernst-Volker Staub en Burkhard Garweg. Dat meldt de recherche in Nedersaksen. Een foto bewijst dat Burkhard Garweg in het appartement van Klette in Berlijn is geweest. Op het beeld is te zien dat hij bij haar thuis op de bank zit tussen twee honden in. Waarschijnlijk onderhielden hij en Klette nauw contact.

I would be persuaded by sources with biographical information about this subject; the above is circumstantial evidence and speculation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - This article proves that they are linked. That’s what I’m saying 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to the satisfaction of WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Your comments here largely underline the importance of abiding by this policy and converting the article back to a redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note regarding the rationale of the nominator In contrast to other 3rd generation RAF members Daniela Klette and Ernst-Volker Staub, Garweg has not actually been convicted of any crime —> Klette is also not (yet) convicted. But please correct me if I’m wrong. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Given the sources found, there is a consensus now to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti Taco[edit]

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

This doesn't deserve it's own article- It only appeared in five episodes and has no notable significance. I think this article should be deleted. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it has a significant enough cultural impact to deserve it's own article Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something would have enough cultural impact if it was not only limited to five episodes. Something that would have cultural impact, for example is Ellen DeGeneres in 1997 "coming out" on her show- this led the way to the concept of coming out for LGBT. But spaghetti tacos has no significance.

I see that you're new to Wikipedia so welcome by the way. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome! The reason I originally made this article was because I read the article for Yakisoba-pan, which reminded me of the spaghetti taco. I just wanted to put it in the see also section Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could put it into the article for Yakisoba-pan as a separate section e.g. In popular Culture instead of an article. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright that sounds good :D Sorry for inconveniencing you! Fwedthebwead (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the critereon Wikipedia usually uses to decide if something deserves or doesn't deserve an article is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, i.e. WP:Notability. Which is mostly independent from how often it appeared in its original source. We have one such source in the article, I believe. Are there enough out there to support a full article? Checking this should be done by the nominator before the nomination as explained in WP:BEFORE. What were the results? (The Google news search looks pretty promising). Does anyone else want to look now? Daranios (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I believe there's just enough material for a stand-alone article in accordance with WP:Notability, even if a light one, and no ideal merge target suggests itself. If the sources are felt as being to brief, a merge to the suggested Yakisoba-pan might be ok, based on e.g. this article, which suggests a loose connection. Daranios (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge This doesn't pass the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Even so, it's a WP:NOPAGE situation where there isn't much to say. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Shooterwalker. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and oppose merge or redirect to Yakisoba-pan. Meets WP:GNG, including the 2010 feature article in The New York Times which was widely syndicated and the 2022 Mashed article which also helps to demonstrate that there has been WP:SUSTAINED interest in spaghetti tacos as a dish over time. I have added a few other sources to the article, and there are oodles of recipes available on the Internet; I've cited the "Fiesta spaghetti taco" recipe on the Betty Crocker website. None of these articles mention "yakisoba-pan" which is why I'm opposed to that particular merge (and FWIW, I'm not convinced the quality of the sources in the other article are necessarily better than the sources cited here). Finally, if this article is kept, it should be moved to "Spaghetti taco" with a small "t" which currently is a redirect to iCarly. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this isn't a notable character The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's got an article in the NY Times, the Independent [60] and the Pocono Reocrd [61]. Decent sourcing, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to satisfy notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Please add new sources to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Kofim[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG Falls a mile short on references much less GNG references. Of the 7 references, 5 are the IMDB pages of participants, one is a facebook page, and one is about the person that the film was inspired by with nothing about the film. So zero references about the film. Accordingly 98% of the article is a wiki-editor-created plot summary . North8000 (talk) 00:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to have been nominated for awards [62], so there is a strong possibility it's a notable film, but I agree with the nom; sources used now in the article aren't valid. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NFILM, a film meets notability if "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The film received full-length reviews in a number of national publications in Israel, including Calcalist, Ynet, Haaretz, Walla, and Mako. These should be added to the article, but for now are enough to establish GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Longhornsg, but the article does need work. FortunateSons (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film meets notability requirements for films, article should be improved. Marokwitz (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy pass of WP:NFILM and the WP:GNG. The nomination is a clear WP:NEXIST failure! WP:SNOW also applies. 15:24, 31 March 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.

[1] "Visiting Writers Series begins for spring semester".

[2] Penny, Rachel (December 2008). "Fallout 3". Official UK PlayStation Magazine. No. 26. p. 54.

[3] "10 Ways to be a Complete Bastard in Fallout 3". PlayStation Magazine. No. 17. March 2009. p. 86.

[4] Porter, Will (October 2007). "Welcome to Vault 101". PC Zone. No. 185. pp. 44–9.

[5] "The 200 Greatest PlayStation Moments". Play. No. 200. January 2011. p. 29.

[6] "Places: Megaton". Edge. Christmas 2011. pp. 126–7.

[7] Cheng, William (2014). "A Time at the End of the World". Sound Play: Video Games and the Musical Imagination. Oxford University Press. p. 4252. ISBN 978-0-19-996997-5.

[8] Bissell, Tom (2011). "Fallout". Extra Lives: Why Video Games Mattter. Vintage Books. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-307-47431-5.

[9] Schrier, Karen; Gibson, David (2010). "Moral Sensitivity and Megaton in Fallout 3". Ethics and Game Design: Teaching Values Through Play. Information Science Reference. pp. 41–45. ISBN 978-1-61520-845-6.

[10] Wildt, Lars; Aupers, Stef; Krassen, Cindy; Coanda, Iulia (2018). "'Things Greater than Thou': Post-Apocalyptic Religion in Games". Religions. 9 (6): 169.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]