Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 02	March 04 >

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Woolley[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:SPORTSPERSON including top 5 world rankings, press coverage in ESPN, The Guardian & USA Today MNewnham (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Joeykai (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, several sources [1] Geschichte (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the article doesn't do much to establish notability beyond simply being an Olympic athlete but the search linked by Geschichte shows enough coverage in international media to make a strong case for the GNG being met. See especially [2] [3] and [4]. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:16, 11 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 can be restored if an editor comes forward with an argument that the subject meets the GNG. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Moran (scientist)[edit]

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

I don't think the subject meets WP: N. The current sources do not establish notability. They either contain substantial content from the subject herself or don't contain substantial coverage. Here is an archived version of the leading scientists link that's currently broken in the article. I couldn't find any source other than this one that could possibly be used. However, I couldn't find credentials of the journalist that wrote this, and the article mostly contains quotations from the subject anyway. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Ireland, and United Kingdom. Shaws username . talk . 00:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't know if FRSC qualifies for NPROF -- it seems like members of the RSC can gain fellowship by just applying after having 5 years of professional experience in chemistry. Certainly she does not qualify through academic citations. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay it looks like it's not quite that universally inclusive. Here's our article on it: In addition, they must have made an outstanding contribution to the advancement of the chemical sciences; or to the advancement of the chemical sciences as a profession; or have been distinguished in the management of a chemical sciences organization. I'd be inclined to argue it definitely meets WP:NPROF if it only had the first of those three criteria, but I'm not so sure about the other two. -- asilvering (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The application for FRSC just says:
✓ Five years’ professional experience or evidence of contribution to the chemical sciences (If you don't have your CV to hand, you can use our template).
✓ Two referees
✓ If applying online: A credit or debit card
✓ A £100 non-refundable application fee must accompany all applications for Fellow
The FAQs also suggest that "contribution to the chemical sciences" can just mean "measurable impact on one's organization/business directions and success". JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For certain FRSC does not qualify as notable, it is very different and easier to get than FRS. Being on a board at RSC is good, but by itself is not notable enough. A big problem is that her name is too common, making searches problematic. I don't find enough in a search or the article for notability. If there is then hopefully one of the creators is watching and can add. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted in the UK as public health scientist. Her presidency of the Association of Public Analysts, her being one of the 100 leading scientists by the UK's Science Council, serving on the Royal Society of Chemistry's [board] and as one of their 175 Faces of Chemistry all seem to me to indicate sufficient notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: Inclusion on lists is not sufficient to establish notability. The RSC source contains almost entirely quotations from the subject herself, and the Science Council source makes little more than a passing mention of her. If she is as notable as you say, you shouldn't have any problem adding sources that actually establish her notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been at the top of this specialisation, as per Msrasnw's three points above. Searches by name need to include "Liz", "Elizabeth" and "Watney Elizabeth". PamD 15:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing evidence of meeting NPROF, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of IRS SIGCOV to suggest she meets GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any possibility of a pass of WP:PROF (including FRSC which is not selective enough to count), so that leaves WP:GNG. I was hoping the "175 faces" source would provide significant depth of coverage of her, and was preparing to go with a weak delete on that basis (because it's only one and we need multiple in-depth sources). But that source turns out to be an interview without much depth, so I don't think it counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and softly, because she is right on the cusp of notability. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 7 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. Star Mississippi 22:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumanovo-Lipkovo offensive[edit]

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

Hello. This article offers nothing unique beyond what the articles Battle of Lojane, Battle of Vaksince and Battle of Matejče] offer. In fact, it's a copy-paste of those articles. There is not really much talk of offensives or fronts for the Macedonian insurgency anyway. Recommending deletion per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the page has almost no information and only few sources. It’s unnecessary just like the Karadak front. And the creator of this article has recently been noticed for unnecessary edits and incorrect information Daddyson11111 (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seconding, since I see no persuasive reason to keep it. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 10 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. Star Mississippi 22:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chab chab[edit]

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

~~Unsourced and unnotable.~~ Has minimal notability and has hardly any reliable sources about it. I've searched the internet for any documentation of this and all I've found were blogs, untrustworthy sites, etc. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ''Flux55'' (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've found a mention in a German book by looking at the article on other wikis: "Schmuck aus dem Himalaja" by Hans Weihreter (1988). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find nothing on google, google scholar, or my university library for "chab chab". A search for "Chab chab" Tibet has satisfied me that "chab" is a Tibetan word, but that's as far as I get without going really deep into search results. I don't see any examples at Tibetan culture#Clothing either. There's a sentence at that article that appears to have been written by someone trying to de-orphan Chab chab; it doesn't really fit with the rest. Since we don't have any good sources for it I think we should remove that line and delete this article. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 10 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!} 09:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mabuhay Channel[edit]

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

I can't find any siginficant coverage about the subject in reliable sources. PROD was contested claiming that notability, which the subject lacks, is not temporary. Israel's Son 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Israel's Son 04:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BEFORE search found no WP:SIGCOV indeed. So, this channel fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aksyon JournalisMO[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note we also have a related article on later Pilipinas News, notability similarity unknown. IgelRM (talk) 19:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BEFORE search found no reliable and significant coverage, so this fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I also think this article has been given several chances for improvement. --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:39, 4 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 22:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Marks[edit]

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

Uncited for over a decade, cannot find any sources for him (not someone else with the same name). Mach61 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Mach61 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added some sources. None are SIGCOV but a newspaper article does have a small bio. He was living in Berlin by the 1980's. Someone with access to The British Newspaper Archive, German or jazz publications might be able to find something. S0091 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY and WP:NBAND. I see some improvement, but as usual, I would prefer for all external links to be placed into in-line citations. Based on his international touring, he appears to be a notable musician under criteria #1 and # 4. Bearian (talk) 15:20, 7 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 redirect‎ to Wikt:ambisexual. Star Mississippi 22:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ambisexual[edit]

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

per WP:DICT. I propose redirecting to bisexuality or soft redirecting to wikt:ambisexual --MikutoH ^talk! 23:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Disambiguations. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to wikt:ambisexual and Delete per nom. Tdmurlock (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Second Gyeongin Expressway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Gyeongin Expressway tunnel fire[edit]

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

All the coverage I found is from December 2022. No WP:LASTING coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and South Korea. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ It looks like it was created right after the fire when there was coverage in the anglosphere and then nothing else. I was able to find an English source from March 2023 about suspects being refered to prosecutors and Korean sources about scentencing in September 2023. There's also two from October 2023 which seem to be refering to the same thing but have different casualty numbers (although that might just be a translation error). There an article from February 2023 looking back at the fire, and March 2023 about it reopening and the material used that contributed to the fire. As well as July 2023 about another city replacing all their soundproof tunnels becasue of the now identified risks.

It's probably the case that it should be mentioned in/moved to another an article about that, but I think it needs a Korean speaker to look thorugh sources before deleting. And also someone who's more familiar with Korean news sources too, one of the ones I had picked up (bnnbreaking) on were noted as unreliable although there's nothing on the others. Shaws username . talk . 00:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Second Gyeongin Expressway as an atd. Shaws username . talk . 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gyeongin Expressway. Even ignoring its notability, which is tenuous, there's no reason why one fact about the expressway should have its own article (WP:NOPAGE). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a partial response to this, Seongsu Bridge disaster has its own article, separate from Seongsu Bridge. toobigtokale (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of continued sigcov for months afterwards in the Korean language, but I could entertain a merge to Second Gyeongin Expressway. The coverage is often of the outcome of the event, particularly the investigations and legal trials.

[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

Anecdotal, but this was pretty big news in South Korea at the time and is still mentioned on TV every now and then. Pretty horrifying event. toobigtokale (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can google the phrase "제2경인고속도로 갈현고가교 화재" and switch to news; coverage is across hundreds of articles and comes from like every major South Korean newspaper and continues for months afterwards, even into late 2023. toobigtokale (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Interestingly the Bahasa Indonesia article is the most developed here, but I think this passes WP:LASTING. It does need to be significantly expanded, though, and if someone looks at this again after awhile and it hasn't been, I may be willing to concede I was wrong... (edit: on that note, perhaps this is a valid article title, but should be merged until we can split it.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 8 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!} 08:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Jackets[edit]

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

I could continue pruning this highly promotional article on a non-notable organization, but really AfD is the way to go. The only coverage there is concerns passing mentions of people who joined the club. The big claim to fame was based on this article--but you'll have to scroll down a long way to get to the news item where they are mentioned. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and Texas. Shaws username . talk . 23:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I cannot find any independent sources on this org, but it is possible that there may have been some in old-timey traditional media if anyone can locate. As it currently stands, the sources are all primary or a passing mention. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:46, 4 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HousingAnywhere[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was last deleted at AfD in 2017 and has since been recreated twice (the other recreation having been deleted per WP:G5 back in 2019).

I think that the reasoning from the last AfD still applies to the current version of the article, namely that the coverage is routine coverage and does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. GTrang (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I oppose deletion. Still I do not think this is a very interesting, nor worthwhile article. Yet there appears to be several sources with this topic being the main focus in mainstream national press (newspapers and television journal), therefore in my view it passes notability threshold (taking account I am in favour of a fairly light screening). In fact I think the current version is oversourced (with many dubious sources polluting the few strong ones) which may be because of the anxiety of it being deleted without many references, and if anxiety curbs Wikipedia editing we are on a wrong track. Quality over quantity would have had my preference. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Netherlands. GTrang (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page is covered with not just routine but quite in-depth coverage, mainly from Dutch and German newspapers like Südkurier and others. The number of links is perhaps too high on the page, but since the platform is from 2009 and evolved as a student startup, which reporters and various journalists usually love, this is forgiving. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 13:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I see good sourcing and high-quality attention from reliable multiple and cross-industry publications, including a regularly published magazine by Rotterdam Business School. It wouldn't be surprising to find even more and better sources. Also, Google news and other web searches show significant results. Bager Drukit (talk) 18:52, 8 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. (non-admin closure) GTrang (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoruba people in the Atlantic slave trade[edit]

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

Its nonsensical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiznaw (talk • contribs)

Speedy Keep. Nominator fails to explain why they think it's nonsensical or what Wikipedia policies and guidelines should prevent us from having an article on the topic. Jfire (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nomination is not good enough to build a discussion upon. Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Characters of the Kirby series[edit]

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn‎ Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I love Kirby, the series gets practically no discussion on its characters anywhere. Outside of the main trio of Kirby, Dedede, and Meta Knight, the rest of cast receives barely any coverage. The characters as a whole receive no coverage, either. The characters as a whole don't seem to meet notability, and not even an argument equivalent to NLIST can be made, as Kirby is the only character from the series with an article. More minor recurring characters can logically be discussed in brief in the series article's "Characters" section, while characters who are really only primarily associated with one game can logically be redirected there. I hate having to play devil's advocate with this article, but unless some massive character-focused Kirby renaissance comes around, I doubt this article will ever meet notability thresholds. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:CSC states that one potential criteria for a list is: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names." That is precisely what this list is and the characters have enough coverage to not merit a merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, seems I missed that while looking over the criteria. Will withdraw this per the fact of policy guidelines. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No consensus that this is a cricket tournament. However, there is general consensus that the topic meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Street Premier League[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket 'tournament'. Besides being played with tennis balls (???), it fails WP:GNG, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT, and WP:NCRIC. In removing the PROD, the removing editor claims that because Sachin Tendulkar backs it, this makes it notable. Notability isn't inherient simply because someone famous backs it. If Tendulkar backed the local donkey derby, it still wouldn't be notable. AA (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the comments I (the removing editor) made on that talk page: ~~I disagree with the proposal for deletion.~~ The tournament has the backing of Sachin Tendulkar, a major cricket figure, and backing from major Bollywood stars, so it seems rather notable. [15] lists Tendulkar as an "Investor and Core Committee Member" of the tournament. Additionally, the sums of money involved ($150 million have been spent to own the six teams in the competition) are significant.
However, I am only mentioning some arguments for keeping the article; I am not voting or formally opposing the deletion of this article. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Cricket. AA (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep - lots of coverage in Indian media. Also some in international media 1 JMWt (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best I could suggest is WP:TOOSOON. No visible coverage of what appears to be an amateur showcase outside of India apart from Wisden, the Cricket trade rag. Most of the articles seem to be a rehash of the original press release. The mention of $150M above is elusive. Recreate if it takes off MNewnham (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the "$150M", the sources use the phrasing in the original currency of "₹1,165 crore". For example, [16]. GreekApple123 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does look to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, while there is some coverage, at the moment I'm not sure it is of WP:GNG nature. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or *~~Draftify. Future event, not yet taken place. If Dratfified, recommend usage of more reliable media sources than what is currently on the page and there is lot of elusory segments on the page without any sources. ~~RangersRus (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Update: Page has been edited since my vote but there is still room for improvement. I am sure more coverage will be forthcoming principally after the event goes live, that would help enhance this page. RangersRus (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has attracted "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as Times of India, Economic Times, Outlook India, The Hindu, Indian Express and Economic Times confirming bids over $200 million USD. This is just a selection. Simply because a topic has primarily received coverage in India does not mean it fails notability requirements. It is inconceivable to imagine a British or American article nominated for deletion with this level of coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be, because it's nonsense. Simply because it's in India, isn't relevant. Our coverage aligns largely to the ICC definition of official cricket. AA (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a case of I don't like it. The GNG applies project-wide. The event has achieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NCRIC is a policy for cricketers and umpires, it has no mention of cricket tournaments. So, it is illogical to link NCRIC in this nomination and I can't understand why the nominator did it. The nominator seems to be obsessed with nominating TOURNAMENT articles for deletion which do not fall under WP:OFFCRIC. However, unfortunately OFFCRIC is not an official policy or guideline. There is sufficient coverage in independent sources, pass WP:GNG as already mentioned by some previous users. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And just like with the other nomination, the references do little to generate notability. Many are press releases and schedule, for example we have another "ISPL T-10 2024: Schedule, Teams, and More"... how is that nothing but Wikipedia:REFBOMB? I think we have very different ideas of what constitutes decent sourcing and what doesn't. We should not be an indiscriminate collection of articles every time a 'hit and giggles' competition is launched in India. Quality, not quantity. AA (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of the sources presented here would be more helpful than debating which cricket guideline is the most relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems to me that the issue regarding the ICC official definition of cricket isn't relevant because Other Types of Cricket Exist. We have Tape ball cricket and Tennis ball cricket both of which are unofficial but have (for example in Pakistan) an enthusiastic following. The only question we should be addressing is whether this tournament meets the GNG not whether it meets the standards of the cricket purists. FWIW I see the WP:TOOSOON argument but this seems to me to reject a considerable volume of Indian media coverage as fluff. It seems like even if it was decided that the GNG wasn't met that moving to draft would at least give the opportunity to see if it was more than a brief flash-in-the-pan. JMWt (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but this seems to me to reject a considerable volume of Indian media coverage as fluff" - that sounds a bit like WP:GEOBIAS... AusLondonder (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there does seem to be decent enough coverage to just about pass WP:GNG, even if what's being played is barely cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Economic Times, Webdunia, The Sporting News, Free Press Grail, and ANI combine to a reasonably solid GNG pass just from sources in the article. and there seem to be some more sources coming in over the course of the deletion discussion, for instance this Hindustant Times piece published today, about the first game. Also, it being cricket or not is completely irrelevant, and coverage being just in India is also perfectly valid. Rusalkii (talk) 06:25, 9 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 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Rothstein[edit]

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

I believe this person does not meet WP:A7, however my speedy deletion was contested. Not sure she is notable per WP:ENT. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 20:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 20:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Video games, Anime and manga, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: to qualify for speedy deletion under A7, the article must not make any credible claim of importance. Both this and the Bob Papenbrook article clearly claim importance, and do so credibly. Whether that claim is supported by sources, and amounts to notability per WP:GNG or WP:ENT is a separate question - one for AfD, not for speedy deletion. Please reserve A7 tags for pages where the unanswered question is why the person is important, not where the unanswered question is whether they actually are. Owen× ☎ 20:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't locate sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 02:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her voice acting credits are all things like "additional voices". "A Faery Hunt" turns up advertising before it turns up news. Highly unlikely to pass WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 21:58, 10 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. Nomination withdrawn. Possible Merge can be discussed on article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frederico Meyer[edit]

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

As the article creator, I'm not sure there's enough content out there for an article on this individual, so am proposing deletion. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Israel, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brazil–Israel relations then. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GnocchiFan, have you tried Portuguese-language sources like [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc.? You probably can even find free-license photographs of him on Flickr to illustrate the article. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the articles, I appreciate it! I've expanded using the Portuguese sources and added an image as you said - if I could withdraw this deletion nomination I would do. Very much appreciated. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GnocchiFan See WP:NACD. Shadow311 (talk) 23:51, 5 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!} 19:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raquel Evita Saraswati[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is mostly developed from coverage focused on one event in early 2023, and substantial article content is supported by a press release produced by the article subject. The limited coverage in independent, reliable, and secondary sources provides minimal support for enduring notability; deletion seems supported by WP:BLP and WP:NOT policies, which encourage higher-quality and more sustained coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Pennsylvania. Beccaynr (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely negative coverage, mostly about racial issues and her misrepresentations. I can only find coverage about the negative aspects, nothing about her as an activist. Being famous for "not telling the truth" could get you an article, but we'd need neutral coverage. I don't see enough to source a balanced article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Saraswati lied about her ethic identity comes from a single source. An estranged family member of low character. All other claims about her ethnicity are a direct result that one article and that one source. The article provided, contains Saraswati's official response to the accusations and includes a statement from a board certified dermatologist - Dr. Jayne Bird of Philadelphia - who she has been seeing for at least six years. The dermatologist confirmed the results from "three independent and extensive DNA tests" and the validity of Saraswati's identity as a woman of color.

"Raquel has been my regular patient since 2018. As a dermatologist, I classify her skin type as Fitzpatrick Skin Type 4, meaning she has light brown/olive skin color. Natural skin color is determined by genetics and skin type often represents a blend of ethnicities. Her DNA includes the following ethnicities, among others: North African (close to 40%), West Asian, Greek and South Italian (these two are grouped as one category representing approximately 6% of Raquel's DNA). Low amounts (<5%) of Nigerian and other ethnicities are also present. Based on this genetic testing and my observations, it is clearly established that she is skin type 4 and skin of color." - Dr. Bird.

The article is valid. Warriorcitizen5150 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first four hits in Gnews are from different sources, and to be honest, being one race or another doesn't get you notability here. We need more about her other activities, that we don't have. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if we pull out anything racial, what do we have left? Confirmation that a woman worked as an activist. There is not extensive coverage about her "activism", so she doesn't meet notability requirements here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any independent reliable sources about her (the phillymag source in the article is an interview) from before she resigned, which definitely appears as a WP:BLP1E to me. I think it's fair to say that #1 and #2 are met, but I'm more mixed on #3. Although since the coverage of it, aside from a press release by her, had stopped after March 2023 I'm inclined to say that's met too.

Also to note the first two AfDs in 2006 and 2013 were to delete, the third in 2023 was a speedy keep as there was no deletion rationale. Shaws username . talk . 23:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per nom, along with the fact the person requested a long time ago not to have an article written about her. SportingFlyer T·C 15:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think salt may be appropriate according to WP:BLPDELETE, including because to address imbalance from the press release produced by the article subject, the September 10, 2023 source in the article that reports on the press release would seem to contribute further negative content about the subject. Beccaynr (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I personally disagree, that would be the overwhelming consensus. Let me explain .... When I first started as a Wikipedian, and continuing until today, I am of the personal opinion that people who commit fraud and other serious crimes ought to be dragged from one end of the Internet to the other. However, in one infamous AfD, I was outvoted like 661 to 1. According to our agreed policies, including an informal one of Damnatio memoriae, and past precedents, this should be deleted based on WP:BLP1E. Again, setting aside my personal opinion, if we are to follow guidelines consistently and remain neutral, this must be deleted for good. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 7 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× ☎ 19:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free League Publishing[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, article is a list games published. Maybe a List of Free League Publishing would be applicable? IgelRM (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Sweden. IgelRM (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Games, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Converting what amounts to a list of a publisher's notable games, many of which have won awards, into a list of games by that same publisher is process wonkery for process wonkery's sake. Seriously, if you can change the name (but not the content) of the article and it will be acceptable, then our notability guidelines--or at least the current interpretations thereof--are wrong. There's plenty of coverage here for the company's products, and this is not an advertisement, so I am just fine with the GNG criteria applying, regardless of what NCORP says. GNG or SNG merit inclusion, and this is one of the more clear examples of why trying to make NCORP a super-SNG would give us unencyclopedic results. Jclemens (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's actually policy basis for Jclemens' point, and it's the part of WP:NPRODUCT that says "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article. This article can be the name of the company or the name of its product". ~ A412 ^talk! 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll preempt any commentary of "but that says "single series"!" by pointing out that a subject being able to become less notable by releasing more notable products would be an absurd policy interpretation. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember seeing the list format used for List of Rayark games. Although I would think a category virtually have the same value, I notice people feel strongly about this (I guess Wikipedia:Ignore all rules anyway?) IgelRM (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a couple of sentences and two Swedish references which talked a little bit more about the company as such rather than just individual titles. /Julle (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tabletop rpgs, boardgames, licensed videogame, Simon Stålenhag etc. with coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Jclemens that the idea of turning this into a list page is a lateral move with no benefit to the encyclopedia. Toughpigs (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Solution in search of a problem. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dissent: how does this meet WP:NCORP? Some of its products are notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Where is the WP:SIGCOV about the company? Where are its awards, articles about it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding dissenting, discussions here are not closed by democracy. This Bleeding Cool article details the history a bit, but I am also struggling with SIGCOV for the company. IgelRM (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of Swedish articles and a reference to a book where the founding of the company is described. /Julle (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I had noticed, but it depending on how strict SIGCOV (from what I saw on a recent AFD e.g. in depth article solely about company history) is interpreted. IgelRM (talk) 01:28, 9 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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion (and discounting the precocious IP), there is no clear consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 00:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deanne Pandey[edit]

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

non-notable, running mentions, WP:INVALIDBIO WP:BIOFAMILY User4edits (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, India, Maharashtra, and Scotland. User4edits (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 7 isn't even about this person. Source 4 is fine, but wanting to look like her isn't exactly the type of article used for notability. Rest doesn't help coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator neglected to adhere to WP:BEFORE. The subject of this nomination is a best-selling author of multiple books and a basic Google News search for Deanne Pandey reveals a substantial number of articles, such as this (among others), unequivocally meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG. It is hoped that the nominator and the initial voter are not engaged in any form of sockpuppetry within this context. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DNA? I've not heard of that source and it links to a blank page. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DNA (Daily News and Analysis) a major news portal, and it's not the only source supporting the topic. If you had conducted a WP:BEFORE check before casting your vote, you would have discovered numerous additional articles, including those from Business Standard, NDTV, Hindustan Times, Midday, and many others. 1.23.251.79 (talk) 06:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two are brief articles, third one is a name drop, fourth is about her and Michael Phelps, which isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources mentioned above establish notablity well in my opinion. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy overturn and relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 17
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1.23.251.79 appears to be a WP:SPA familiar with WP:POLICIES but contributions only to save this DR and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chikki Panday (Both Pandey/Panday are married) See Special:Contributions/1.23.251.79

Odd that they're intimately familiar with wiki policies but edit while logged out. Would be helpful if they were logged in. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per @User4edits and @Oaktree b. unable to see in-depth SIGCOV. Tehonk (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per WP:GNG since the subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as DNA, HT, Midday etc. as pointed out above by anon. Almost all of these sources provide in-depth coverage of her and her work. GSS ^💬 07:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked through all the provided and applied sources, and I think this is a very marginal case. IMHO, there's simply not enough direct detailing to support anything more than the single sentence in the article. It seems the template for all of these articles is usage of the minimum of text and the maximum of images of the subject. Routine entertainment news. This is a BLP. At this point, we don't meet that high bar for sourcing. BusterD (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're suggesting that this (300+ words article) by DNA India, this (350+ words article) by the Time of India, along with this one in the Bengali language by Ananda Bazar, are inadequate to establish notability? These are reliable independent articles that delve directly into her personal life and career in detail, as required by WP:GNG and WP:BASIC If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Additionally, this interview, among other, can be used to expand the article. GSS ^💬 07:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article and cited some more sources. GSS ^💬 17:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above and a large-scale content expansion by GSS. She is a "national bestselling" author, Apart from that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that make her pass BASIC & GNG. Note: I am the creator of the article.- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I hope these sources find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. D. Davies[edit]

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

No reliable sources in the article or anywhere else. Fails GNG. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, History, and United Kingdom. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, my brief web search established sufficient notability, although the article needs work. There are already reliable sources:

The publication of an academic book by the Oxford University Press supports his academic credentials, and the Samuel Pepys award appears to be prestigious in his field. The Amazon profile indicates other awards,[24] although this may be self-published and would need verification. It refers to a mention in The Times: we should find and assess this.

It is difficult to search for him on the web because he has a common name. I found several academic reviews of "J. D. Davies Gentlemen and Tarpaulins" (they are paywalled, so I have not read the content).

The American Historical Review [25]
Albion (Cambridge University Press) [26]
International Journal of Maritime History [27]
The Historian [28]

It is clear that he is an academic historian and also writes fiction books. The books I have looked at do not appear to be self-published. I have not fully established WP:NACADEMIC, but he may qualify for:

1 The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

2 The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

Verbcatcher (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified Times coverage via a Proquest search ([29],[30]) and added the citation to the article. Due to the paywall I can't see the extent of the review, just the teasing search snippet "wears his knowledge lightly. Death's Bright Angel is the sixth book in a series......Bright Angel by JD Davies Old Stre" but this does confirms the mention referenced by Verbcatcher above. As a result, with the award and other coverage it's becoming reasonable to presume notability. ResonantDis_tortion 21:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further evaluation on the sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The books he wrote have multiple reviews, which would pass NBOOK, but are better covered here than spun out as individual articles. I find the OUP argument above compelling--not just anyone gets them to publish an academic book--as well as the award. While he may not pass NPROF, I believe he meets NAUTHOR 3 and/or 4, and ANYBIO. Jclemens (talk) 08:43, 6 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!} 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Day & Meyer, Murray & Young[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG; no suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : I live, work (16 blocks away), vote, and worship in that neighborhood. It's not notable even in the Upper East Side. This is marginally spam. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redmi 13C[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also directly violates the SNG by creating separate articles for each product of a company. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete – my google search reveals a bunch of arabic sources, but there aren't much sources other than a review which is apparently not from a mobile phone focused website. Those results are just talking about the product being announced, its release and tech specs, such as this arabic source. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redmi 11 Prime[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also directly violates the SNG by creating separate articles for each product of a company. Also reads like an advertisement product catalog page reflecting lack of independent coverage. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just a mobile phone with no reviews available, also noting that every phone that have articles have multiple reviews. Only sources found are discount promotions. Note that a merge is infeasible as there is no article on Redmi 11. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 18:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus seems to be that any existing problems with this article can be remedied through editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasoline and diesel usage and pricing[edit]

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

This article is not good:

It's all about price, not usage
very US centric
large overlap with Fossil fuel subsidies
large overlap with Price of oil

This seems like it would require a total rewrite. I'd rather remove it and improve Fossil fuel subsidies / Price of oil with the data from this page. Киан (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sure, the title sucks but it's been continuously maintained by a host of contributors for close to 20 years after being spun off from the parent, Gasoline. MNewnham (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No rationale for deletion has been offered; this is not terrible, and ordinary processes can fix many issues. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cut and posted some material out of this article into Energy law, and vice versa. Again, I need to emphasize, as someone who has worked on many energy law articles, this can be fixed and connected to lots of other articles, and in no way is it US-centric. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is usually a big topic in US politics so I'm not surprised it's US biased, but as per the above that's not really a good reason to delete an article. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is just as big an issue in the rest of the world. If this article is US biased the reason is the same as for other articles: that the majority of editors of the English Wikipedia are American. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:27, 7 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. Withdrawn by nominator due to a significant modification and improvement of the article per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2024 gaming industry layoffs[edit]

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

There's no other "list of layoffs" on Wikipedia as far as I know, and it seems to run afoul of WP:NOTDATABASE. Note that this does not rule out 2024 gaming industry layoffs as a notable topic for a prose article, but a list doesn't seem to pass notability criteria. Many of the truly noteworthy layoffs are in the top industry companies. It's hard to say what is typical turnover as opposed to major firings, so a lot might be WP:SYNTH. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Business, and COVID-19. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that there might not be another specific "list of layoffs" on Wikipedia, it doesn't necessarily mean that creating such a list runs afoul of Wikipedia's guidelines. The existence of similar lists or lack thereof doesn't determine the validity of a new list. Furthermore, the argument citing WP:NOTDATABASE is not entirely applicable here. Wikipedia allows lists when they serve an encyclopedic purpose and provide valuable information to readers. A list of notable layoffs in the gaming industry could indeed serve this purpose by documenting significant events within the industry, providing historical context, and highlighting trends in employment practices.

Regarding the notability criteria, it's important to recognize that significant layoffs within the gaming industry can have wide-ranging implications beyond just the companies directly involved. They can impact the industry's economy, employment landscape, and even consumer sentiment. Therefore, documenting these events in a list format could help provide a comprehensive view of the industry's dynamics over time. While it may be challenging to distinguish between typical turnover and major firings, proper sourcing and citation practices can help ensure that the information presented is accurate and verifiable, thus mitigating concerns about original synthesis (WP:SYNTH). By citing reputable sources and providing context for each entry on the list, editors can ensure that the information meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability and neutrality.

Creating a list of notable layoffs in the gaming industry can be justified as long as it serves an encyclopedic purpose, is properly sourced, and provides valuable insights for readers interested in the industry's history and developments. Ryan York (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, this is not a subject worthy of being sent to AfD. These mass layoffs are undoubtedly a notable topic worthy of discussion somewhere, the front page of Google searches turns up plenty of WP:SIGCOV related to it. Flat out deletion simply is not a fair proposal here to even consider. Now, I do see how it could be organized in a different article, such as the possibility of an aforementioned 2024 gaming industry layoffs, but that should be a separate discussion not handled at AfD. λ NegativeMP1 18:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It's a noteworthy topic, so we should make a list that speculates that certain layoffs may or may not be related" is an odd tack to take. If it's truly noteworthy, a non-list article can be made about it that specifies what layoffs have been directly linked to each other by reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point I was trying to make. The article itself can be rewritten, that's why I pointed at the possibility of a discussion outside of AfD. What I am opposed to is the flat out deletion of the subject entirely. λ NegativeMP1 18:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to create a non-list article, but due to the complexity of the layoffs, I found it challenging to accomplish alone. Perhaps we can discard this article and instead, I could start writing a comprehensive article about the 2024 gaming industry layoffs, rather than just listing them. However, I still believe that including a list is necessary to effectively convey the information about the layoffs. Ryan York (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restructure as 2024 video game industry layoffs. This does not seem to be a discussion for AfD, as the nominator alludes to. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restructure as 2024 video game industry layoffs (use 'video game', not 'gaming', to differentiate from gambling) The topic is notable. Early 2024 layoffs are discussed generally (not company-specific) in these sources:

NPR
Washington Post
Fast Company
Digital Trends
Polygon
VGC
Engadget
Variety

Keep the work already done, and expand prose. The list is fine to keep in the improved article as an appendix; the data has context. It is not a list of exhaustive or unexplained statistics, which is what WP:NOTDATABASE is intended to prevent. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 19:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the feedback. It's greatly appreciated. I acknowledge your input and will make the necessary improvements to enhance the quality of the article. Ryan York (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral on this, but note that as a potentially long-term trend, thought should be given to how the time-specific framing of this article may need to change in future. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have significantly restructured the article and changed the name to '2024 video game industry layoffs' to make it clear. Ryan York (talk) 06:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive. You could probably nominate for GA once the dust settles on the on-going layoffs. Nice job. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! Ryan York (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like the article has been resurrected very well. Wariorio10 (talk) 02:16, 6 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!} 19:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jimenez (Belizean footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No stats and poorly written. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 6 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!} 19:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromy James[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No SIGCOV and the stats aren't even in the infobox. Anwegmann (talk) 03:21, 6 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!} 19:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau County Sports Hall of Fame[edit]

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

This page is a non-notable award given by an organisation found to be non-notable. No reliable sources cover this award in detail. Most mentions on Google seem to be WP:ORGTRIV and don't seem to discuss the award in any detail (i.e. just acknowledging it exists and someone got given it). Furthermore, this article is just an indiscriminate list of people who got the award. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)_{[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much]} 16:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Awards, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. This is a non-notable award. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Communist (UK)[edit]

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

Non-notable publication, no independent reliable sources. This page was created earlier and then made a redirect to Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) but a user reverted the redirect. It may be necessary to WP:SALT the page or lock it as a redirect to either Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024) or The Communist (which is a disambiguation page). Wellington Bay (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete(ish) and restore the redirect page that was there, which has been moved to The Communist (UK, 1920). I can't find any independent sources for it, and all the information is already in the RCP page, which has it's own AfD Shaws username . talk . 19:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At the moment I cannot see that it has the notability for a separate article, but I would not object to a restoration of the redirect. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Was uncontroversially turned into a redirect due to lack of notability outside of the group that publishes it, seems to have been restored under false claims of "vandalism". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:52, 7 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gievenbach[edit]

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

Very limited refs on the page for many years - just a mention in a government list. Nothing much to suggest a 4km small stream meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep again notability is not what is in the article, I've found additional information here [31] and there are a lot of mentions of the stream in a BEFORE search. Since WP:GEOLAND is a low bar - we just need more than statistics - I'm convinced that is out there, especially with simple Google Scholar searches. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how being a habitat for mudsnails makes this stream notable. It doesn't even appear that snails are particularly rare, it is just a place that the scientists found them. JMWt (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:But_there_must_be_sources! James.folsom (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Comments supporting this article were made by sockpuppets of the article creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Nuclear Energy[edit]

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

Completely press releases / GlobeNewswire. See Jay Jiang Yu as well. TLA (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. CptViraj (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Researching on the topic, Nano Nuclear Energy is dedicated to the development and supply of advanced nuclear microreactor technology. According to references, these microreactors are nuclear systems designed to provide clean energy. These are the references I just researched. https://www.zerohedge.com/energy/future-american-energy-production-must-include-nuclear. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/ODIN. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/idaho-national-laboratory-completes-pre-140000335.html.

Scientific equipment:

I was researching about the scientific advisors and nuclear engineering experts in said organization and this reference showed me the scientists who play in the strategic orientation and technological development of the company. https://nanonuclearenergy.com/nuclear-technical-team/ @I'm tla Kendry Antonio (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:@I'm tla @CAPTAIN RAJU. @CptViraj . Nano Nuclear Energy is an official member of the US Nuclear Industry Council (USNIC) and the Nuclear Institute organization based in the United Kingdom. It Was selected as a founding member of the U.S. Department of Energy's HALEU (High Assay Low Enriched Uranium). Eugenio Montilla (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article makes me suspicious. What does the company actually do? "Nano Nuclear Energy is a provider of microreactors and nuclear services". It has "nuclear" in its name; it makes microreactors, which aren't nuclear reactors though a careless reader might think they were; and it provides "nuclear services". Its executive advisors are politicians, not scientists. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/EliteBrandRealm. TLA (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Entirely sourced to press releases. [32] is also a "contributor piece", paid advertising. Nothing in RS that isn't a paid piece. Delete for any sort of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Rochdale by-election as a minimally contentious ATD. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Tully[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and non-winning candidates get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway. (That is, for example, why the winner of this by-election already had an article before the by-election: not because he was a candidate in Rochdale, but because he had already been an MP in the past.)
The existence of a small handful of run of the mill campaign coverage, further, is not sufficient to say that a person has passed WP:GNG and is therefore exempted from NPOL -- every candidate in every election everywhere can always show a handful of campaign coverage, so if that were enough to exempt a candidate from NPOL then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be rendered meaningless and unenforceable. So the campaign coverage just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has suddenly passed the ten year test for enduring significance.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if he wins a future election to a notable office or accomplishes something else that would pass another notability criterion, but coming in second in a by-election is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coming in second isn't notable. All I can see for continued coverage is that he's returning to work on Monday as a mechanic. Routine coverage, almost trivia at this point. Not meeting GNG Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly BLP1E violation. Subject became notable after the results two days ago, but not passing the NPOL guideline. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with~~ Redirect to 2024 Rochdale by-election: There is not enough significant coverage outside of his candidacy to meet WP:NBASIC, but some of this can be merged into the appropriate part of the by-election article. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC), changed !vote to redirect per Jdcooper, 23:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree merge with 2024 Rochdale by-election - Moondragon21 (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nominator's arguments and other delete voters. Tehonk (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Rochdale by-election: Although this article would appear to fit WP:BLP1E, he did get more votes than the Tory, the Labour candidate, or the Lib Dem, so we would like to explain who he is in that context. Easiest way to do that (I think, as someone who doesn't edit WP:BLP articles enough to understand all nuances) is just forklift this paragraph into that article. Kingdon (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO keeping is preferable to merging here, but if you merge, at least avoid the all-too-common abusive practice of "closing as merge" and then only creating a redirect without ever working the info into the target article. Obviously any good-faith merger means you have to ensure the info does not just get into, but stay in the article. Leave an anchor, comment, whatever you have to do to explain and prevent this from turning into yet another WP:Redirect to nowhere.
  Also, consider the obviousness of your partisanship – the impression it makes when you plaster on a big "health warning" box just as the fact of two people trouncing the establishment in Rochdale is attracting a lot of eyeballs despite the establishment's in-the-tank courtier media's best efforts. UK people already know who Galloway is, but they want to know who the other bloke is who also clobbered all the big establishment parties. And how does Wikipedia present on the occasion? As a member of the intensely POV-happy establishment wanting to suppress both Galloway and his hugely successful runner-up. Consider how you look doing this. Spoiler: It's not a good look. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - In a swift (if not ~boating) response to the above, another editor just posted the following to my Talk page. I wouldn't read too much into the fact that I subordinated my above post to Kingdon's – I might just as well have filed in under another pro-merge comment. Suffice it to say that my use of "you" above was generic. I find the best way to complain of a malpractice is to produce a shoe, and if someone wants to wear it, that's on them. There obviously are much better grounds for considering the schwifty retort exactly what its author accuses me of, and recommending them their own medicine. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether your comment is directed at the generic you or the individual you, accusing people of !voting to merge or keep because they have partisan political interests (I live in the US and had no idea what the Rochdale by-election was until I !voted in this discussion) is neither an appropriate nor a compelling argument. I reiterate my recommendation that you strike your comments. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in keep for now, as too early to decide to delete this or, alternatively, may be appropriate to merge into the by-election article depending on whether enough significant coverage arises for notability. I don't know which way this is going to go. It is borderline with only just a bit more than WP:BLP1E right now.

Some people here are making statements as if they apply on every occasion when this is not the case but, as ever, it requires consideration of the *context*.

It is said "non-winning candidates get articles *only* [my emphasis] if they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway." This cannot be true because it would mean that no matter what a non-winning candidate went on to do and no matter how notable they then became, they would *never* get an article unless they had notability for an article from the start before they failed to win the vote.

It's said "coming in second isn't notable". However, this is also not a complete 'this means it isn't notable'. Instead, it is that coming in second is not *normally* notable. However, this wasn't a normal by-election. Instead it had unique circumstances in which one of the main parties expected easily to win had had to withdraw support for the candidate that continued to appear with the party name on the ballot and this left the race unpredictable. Support for the two biggest parties of national politics collapsed and indeed voters couldn't really vote for one of them. For no mainstream parties to feature in the top two candidates in a result is highly unusual. This gives Mr Tully, as one of them, some notability.

However, the coverage so far is not much above the single event. Nonetheless, he has been mentioned today by the winning MP, whose notoriety is enough that he is likely to get significant media coverage for some time to come, and Mr Tully now features as referred to by Mr Galloway in a politically controversial dispute between the Prime Minister's statement on Friday (1st March) and Mr Galloway's statement this afternoon (4th March). Depending on whether Mr Galloway continues to use not just the votes he has got but also the votes given to Mr Tully in saying both of them have roundly beaten Mr Sunak's party, Mr Tully's achievement, even in not winning the election but in getting nearly twice as many votes as the governing party, may yet continue to make him of notoriety.

We don't know how much, if at all, Mr Galloway is going to continue to refer to him yet and what impact his statements may have. It is too early to say that Mr Tully has lost notability after surfacing from obscurity - is this going to be a brief appearance before obscurity again or is his achievement going to persist in political debates in Parliament that may well get more attention due to involving Mr Galloway? We expect Mr Galloway's tenure as an MP to be brief and for the Labour Party to win the replacement seat at the general election.

Nonetheless, these next months before whenever the general election comes may well have Mr Tully repeatedly referenced by Galloway and could see him have long-lasting notoriety to be remembered for decades, even if we are not there yet. He is clearly known in Rochdale due to his repair business. However, I do not consider that this alone gives him an article as it clearly didn't before he surfaced with the success in the election, which is the beating of the Conservative governing party into third place not his coming second (which is the failure to win the seat).

Nonetheless, maybe off-topic I don't know, there is an article for Willy's Chocolate Experience but how notorious is this really as a single event that, in the grand scheme, is much more likely to fade away and not occur again whilst Mr Tully does have potential for his achievement to continue known beyond one event in a single year? People are seeing the immediate, in which it is also difficult right now to judge what is going to happen with Mr Tully, rather than looking at whether this is a long-lasting article on Wikipedia in decades to come. It is difficult to know whether some events in our immediate are likely to gain historical impact for future generations. aspaa (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. Someone is not notable because they are mentioned in the media by another person, and we don't keep articles just because somebody may become notable. Regarding the fact that Willy's Chocolate Experience has an article, we don't base deletion decisions on other articles existing because there's no guarantee that the example you've provided is also notable enough to have an article, and this discussion is about this article, not that one. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and lets just keep in mind the uniqueness of the Rochdale by-election, given it ended with a Workers Party 1st place and 2nd place independent. The fact Tully came before both Labour and the Conservatives, even in the fraught conditions both parties are currently in, can't be said to be unworkable and worthy of recognition. Le0nidasOfCorinth (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely worthy of mentioning on the article about the by-election, but it doesn't mean he's eligible for his own article. Just finishing second is not enough to get someone over the bar of being notable just because they were a candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 14:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am fascinated that the major British parties have been beaten into third place by two outsiders, one of whom is Mr Tully. I would like to hear more about him and his support base on the Wikipedia article. 37.5.242.60 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC) — 37.5.242.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Article consists entirely of background and no biographical info: not even worth merging into the by-election article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has already merged the information, so redirect to 2024 Rochdale by-election. Plausible search term, and all available info can be (already is) comfortably contained on parent article. Jdcooper (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous arguments. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– notable for the unusual nature of his achievement, comparable to Jason Palmer (politician). Article needs work though. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Rochdale by-election - as failing WP:BLP1E. We also don't keep articles because we are "fascinated" by it's subject or because we think that he may "have long-lasting notoriety" one day (WP:CRYSTAL). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect– As suggested by Jdcooper. I do not think there is enough notability or information for David Tully to have his own article. Random123games (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Subject doesn't meet GNG or NPOL but redirect preferable to deletion. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for an electoral result Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious delete unusual achievement, but still looks like a case of WP:BLP1E, it's not like e.g. shooting Archduke Franz Ferdinand. BTW, not sure Jason Palmer (politician) is notable either. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 10 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. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chupke Se Bahar Ajaye[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Checked all Six sourcing, but all just mention only. In my opinion, it fails WP:THREE as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk)
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; not enough SIGCOV in GNG sources. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honeymoon Tavern[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG.

PROD removed with comment, "Kim Hee-sun is in this show!", but notability isn't inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED DonaldD23 talk to me 14:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Travel and tourism, and South Korea. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lee, Gyu-lee (2021-08-17). "Star-studded 'Honeymoon Tavern' hits new lowest rating". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.
  The article notes: "TvN's variety show "Honeymoon Tavern" is failing to win over viewers' hearts with its cliche-ridden concept, despite its star-studded cast that includes actors Kim Hee-sun, Teo Yoo and K-pop star Kai. ... Whereas in "Honeymoon Tavern," the cast make up the menu to serve the guest as they go, and come up with activities or features to add to their inn on the spot, which gives a ragtag feel to the inn. Despite their skills in managing the inn, the show could still make itself interesting with the cast members having fun and interacting with each other and with guests. But their chemistry seems to be just starting to kick in."
2. Lee, Hye-ri 이혜리 기자 (2021-08-10). "화려한 캐스팅도 안 통한다…'우도주막'·'바라던 바다' 부진한 이유" [Even fancy casting doesn't work… The reason why 'Honeymoon Tavern' and 'Sea of Hope' performed poorly]. EToday [ko] (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "'Honeymoon Tavern' casts singer Tak Jae-hoon, actor Yoo Tae-oh, EXO member Kai, and comedian Moon Se-yoon, who appeared in his first regular entertainment show, with actor Kim Hee-sun as the centerpiece. The purpose of the program is to invite newlyweds and provide them with everything from dinner to a late-night main meal and to have a happy day. It started with the goal of “delivering empathy and laughter to viewers about the happy memories made by the cast and newlyweds,” but many are of the opinion that this is not shown in a significant way in the broadcast. In addition to the special synergy between the cast and the newlyweds, there is no special chemistry found among the cast. Although they each work hard at their jobs, it is disappointing that they are shown on screen working separately rather than merging as one."
3. Choi, Young-gyun 최영균 (2021-08-10). "'우도주막', 술이나 권하라고 김희선을 주모로 모신 건가" ['Honeymoon Tavern', did they invite Kim Hee-sun as the main host to offer them drinks?]. 엔터미디어 [EnterMedia] (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "It seems that one of the reasons for the slow start of is that the regular cast disappears to other schedules as soon as it starts. Moon Se-yoon and Kai appeared in episode 1 and then went to Seoul for work, and actor Ryu Deok-hwan took their place. As a result, Ryu Deok-hwan repeats the same mistakes made by Moon Shae-yoon and Kai in organizing the guest room. Growth is very important for this type of self-employed entertainment. At first, it's fun to see mistakes made, but viewers become engrossed in the process of growing up. However, as mistakes are repeated among the performers, growth remains stagnant, which has a negative impact on this type of entertainment."
4. Jo, Ji-young 조지영 (2021-07-26). "'우도주막' 오픈 이래 최대 위기→영업 3일 차 업그레이드 된 활약기 예고" [The biggest crisis since the opening of 'Honeymoon Tavern' → Notice of upgraded activity on the 3rd day of business]. The Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "In the 3rd episode of 'Honeymoon Tavern', which airs at 10:30 pm today (26th), the members are doing their best to operate despite the inclement weather on the 3rd day of business, but are in an emergency situation due to unexpected bad weather. ... Meanwhile, 'Honeymoon Tavern' is a healing program that provides warm laughter and empathy through a tavern run by Kim Hee-sun, Tak Jae-hoon, Yoo Tae-oh, Moon Se-yoon, and Kai in collaboration for a special night for newlyweds."
5. Lee, Jeong-hyeon (2021-06-17). "김희선, 신혼부부 위한 주막 오픈…tvN '우도주막'" [Kim Hee-sun opens a tavern for newlyweds...tvN 'Honeymoon Tavern'] (in Korean). Yonhap News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-03-05. Retrieved 2024-03-05.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "'Honeymoon Tavern' is about celebrities setting up a tavern in Udo and inviting newlyweds who had difficulty getting married due to the novel coronavirus infection (Corona 19) to give them a happy day."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Honeymoon Tavern (Hangul: 우도 주막; RR: Udo Jumag) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging MannyMammal (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per Cunards sources listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 6 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. The overall sense of this discussion is that the subject does meet WP:JOURNALIST, and does not fall within WP:BIO1E. There is a significant, but minority, delete strain taking the opposite view, and particularly expressing concern about the tone of the article. The article in its current form is not an attack page of the type that would qualify for speedy deletion, and it is ECP as a contentious topic. I did afford less weight to arguments that the subject has a page on another language version of Wikipedia as projects are free to adopt independent definitions of notability, but even so, there is consensus to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anat Schwartz[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST and falls afoul of WP:BLP1E. As with another, similar BLP in the I/P area that was recently deleted, we have an anomaly among BLPs about journalists, an area rife with COI in which many if not most of which are self-promotional. This one has the effect if not the intent of discrediting the subject with regard to a particular article on the Gaza war. Like that other BLP, this is a WP:MILL individual who has received negative attention from people who don't like her. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Israel. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hmm, an "individual [usually] receives negative attention from people who don't like her". That's kind of a fact; nothing incisive. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am actually okay if we instead create a new article specifically about the issues surrounding the NYT Screams without Words report instead of focusing on this woman. We have self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell focusing on his protest incident instead of just "Aaron Bushnell" as a person. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage of her in Hebrew beyond this single event, meets GNG by a mile and the coverage is not limited to a single event. The article may be overly focused on that, but the coverage is not. See for example coverage from 2017. nableezy - 15:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this individual in fact passes WP:JOURNALIST criterion 4(c): The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention. Also, does not fall under WP:BLP1E per Nableezy. starship .paint (RUN) 15:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nableezy and starship.paint this individual does not fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:BLP1E is not applicable. Any problems with the article content can be solved by editing and discussion on the talk page, not by deletion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the nominator has called this page and WP:ATTACK page but I strongly believe that this is not an attack page. It might be WP:NEGATIVESPIN but at least some versions of this page are not a deliberate attack against the article subject. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I raised WP:ATTACK on another page so yes, that is correct, I think it falls within the four corners of that policy. I think the fact that the essence of her reporting was just confirmed today by the UN makes my concerns even more magnified than previous. So thanks for pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it falls within the four corners of that policy Nonsense. And the UN report has nothing to do with it. Selfstudier (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is a fundamental misreading of WP:ATTACK. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore if this page were to be nominated for speedy deletion under {{db-attack}}, I'm nearly 100% confident that would fail under any version in the revision history. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong pass of WP:JOURNALIST. I can not see received negative attention from people who don't like her as a serious summary of the article or of the public's interest in this topic. For WP:BLP1E see WP:NOTBLP1E#"One dominant event".—Alalch E. 16:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Essential to understanding the misinformation that has spread during the Israel-Hamas war. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Especially while the story is playing out. This is raising issues about the credibility of several organizations, including the New York Times and at least two espionage organizations, often referred to as "intelligence" organizations, implying it's intelligent to keep secrets and provide war propaganda. Although if another article, as someone suggested, is created a merge is worth considering. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Nableezy and others. Would support Sameboat's proposal for an article about the Screams Without Words controversy and then merge proposal as suggested by Zacherystaylor. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was referring to Sameboat's suggestion, for what it's worth, but it's still worth consideration. I'm not aware that such an article has been created. Zacherystaylor (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move: I also support creating an article on "Screams Without Words", to which Anat Schwartz can subsequently be merged. The comment I wrote on the talk page : I would personally lean towards moving Anat Schwartz to a ‘Screams Without Words’: How Hamas Weaponized Sexual Violence on Oct. 7 article. I agree that Schwartz isn't notable outside of her article, of which she isn't even the sole author. News coverage related to the NYT article, besides "Between the Hammer and the Anvil", doesn't really focus on Schwartz anyway, but I think that that coverage is becoming significant enough (The Intercept, CNN, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, op-eds in The Nation and Jacobin, etc.) to warrant an article. I don't see why it would fail WP:SUSTAINED because A) the article in and of itself has had a big impact on public discourse since its publication, B) the controversial aspect of the article also dates to at least January (the "Daily" episode) and has had at least another development (Schwartz's Twitter likes) even before the recent Intercept article, and C) the Intercept story has already snowballed into another story, with the leak investigation by the NYT and related allegations of racial profiling. WikiFouf (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP: BEFORE, I can see passing WP: JOURNALIST as the sources about her were written by out general reliable sources. Then, also passed apart from WP: GNG, there is WP: CREATIVE...since she was noted of her journalistic skill by Al Jazeera. All the best. Otuọcha (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:JOURNALIST, Anat Schwartz does not pass the notability bar for journalists. Actually, below WP:JOURNALIST bar by a substantial margin:

Anat Schwartz is a junior journalist. As the article shows, she started working as a journalist for the NYT on 2023 - too junior to be an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
Anat Schwartz is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Even the NYT article provides an angle shared by many other journalists and journals.
Anat Schwartz did not create a significant or well-known work or collective body of work - no Pulitzer award or any other significant journalist achievement.
Her work never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. GidiD (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if you combine the Delete voters arguments above, way above, and below, her work is claimed to have not won significant critical attention, but also this is an ATTACK page and has the effect if not the intent of discrediting the subject with regard to a particular article on the Gaza war. You can't have it both ways, in totality the arguments are contradictory. starship .paint (RUN) 02:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not have to be a senior journalist or a good journalist to be a journalist or to or only or predominantly be a journalist to be subjectable to WP:NJOURNALIST. The "junior journalist" argument is special pleading. Anat Schwartz is indeed not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, and her work has indeed never: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. But it has (c) won significant critical attention. Because she did create a significant or well-known work. A work that was the primary subject of coverage in various other works. The NYT article is a significant and well-known work, and it received widespread attention and highly substantive critique. If we were to construe "significant" to be limited to "good works", "celebrated works", "Pulitzer-prize-winning works", that would not be good. It would be systemically non-neutral. It is not about awarding someone an article for their good work, about giving them recognition on the grounds of their praiseworthy journalistic work, it's not about celebrating good things, it's about having an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia covers equally the good, the bad, and the in-between. —Alalch E. 13:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there is a pass of CREATIVE, the article is an ATTACK page. Schwartz, who is a very rounded media professional, with a well-balanced article on Hewiki, seems to have become a cause célèbre in conspiracy theories. I believe that AFDISNOTCLEANUP and articles should be corrected and improved. That said, I do not see people succeeding in balancing this article and this is a BLP that cannot be kept as an attack page. There are some comments on the talk page, there is the nomination, a brief discussion on my talk page, GidiD's opinion in edit conflict with my own (we are alike in more than just our names...), and now there also is my opinion on this AfD. I hope that this will be sufficient to protect this living person from attacks on Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a fair point of labeling all the disadvantageous points against Schwartz as attack, IOW defamatory. We may delete this article per BLP1E or other policies, but the new article about the controversial NYT report will retain all the "attacking" details so long as all those points are backed by reliable sources. Your goal of "protecting this living person from attacks" would not work by deleting this article. Her journalistic integrity is being questioned justly, and this is something should be documented with our best ability. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This response doesn't relate so much to my opinion, set aside one central piece of it that it is spot on: We may delete this article per BLP1E or other policies. I'll try to refer to the rest, have given it some thought, just not very related to my points. gidonb (talk) 14:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article created via Hebrew WP so arguably notable even prior to the latest developments on the notability front, easy GNG pass and the NYT story is already sustained.Selfstudier (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering that the subject's reporting was confirmed today by the United Nations, therefore effectively discrediting the thrust of this article (i.e. the effort to discredit her work) my concerns about this article are magnified. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1235824305/israel-sexual-assault-rape-hamas-attack-un-report This article serves no useful purpose but to focus attention on a fringe theory of the Oct. 7 attacks, namely that the widely reported, indeed, self-reported (by the rapists) sexual violence in Israel did not take place. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has always been about which things are fact and which are allegation, the UN report will help in that regard. It certainly did not confirm the subject's reporting over which there is and will remain controversy. Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but how is this relevant to the discussion about whether or not to keep the article? The existence of an article about the subject is not intended to discredit her work. Philipnelson99 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the actual report. Go to 55 and 86. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... The mission team was unable to establish the prevalence of sexual violence and lack of cooperation by the State of Israel with relevant United Nations bodies with an investigative mandate and information gathered by the mission team was in large part sourced to Israeli national institutions. starship .paint (RUN) 04:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and/or redirect to Screams Without Words per WP:BLP1E. She is only notable for having written one controversial (and, allegedly, discredited) article. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2024
BLP1E does not apply. Please see WP:NOTBLP1E#"One dominant event". There is coverage of her prior to the reaction to the NYT article; she is the director of a noteworthy 2017 documentary film, for example. ... In the language of policy: Reliable sources do not cover the person only in the context of a single event, she has received coverage for other things as well, she is not a low-profile individual and was not a low-profile individual even prior to the latest event, which is a significant event, and the individual’s role in it is substantial and is well documented. Fails on every count. Colossal BLP1E fail.—Alalch E. 12:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per starship.paint and nableezy, meets the criteria defined by WP:JOURNALIST. BLP1E does not apply for reasons articulated by several editors above, but if the page is not kept as a biographical article, I am also not opposed to repurposing/restructuring the page to be focused on the controversial article she authored. Vanilla Wizard 💙 19:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this subject is, in fact, notable for reasons other than this NYT article. However, this article needs a total top-to-bottom rewrite and some sort of arbitration remedies because the mini edit wars going on are incredibly detrimental to this article. Articles are being misquoted and selectively quoted to include incorrect information. It very much would fall under WP:ATTACK. The sourcing is almost entirely to a collection of marginally reliable sources. Efforts to include accurate information about the subject, about her filmmaking history, for example, are repeatedly erased; no efforts are made to source or clean up such info, just wiping. As evidenced above, editors currently fixated on the page have clear biases and agendas with the "purpose" or "point" of this page, many of which spill into the conspiratorial. Some of the delete votes above are on the very basis of the inability to clean up this BLP, a reasonable concern. And if there isn't any concerted will to actually fix this article wholesale, then I actually would flip my vote to a Delete since, even if a subject is a reliable, this encyclopedia should not be hosting malicious, baseless, or potentially defamatory claims, certainly not as facts (rather than for the substance of allegations made by certain parties or conspiratorial groups). Jbbdude (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the arguments starship.paint and nableezy have advanced, that it meets WP:JOURNALIST. One thing to add for notability - the NYT won George Polk Awards this year, one of them in "Foreign Reporting", its coverage of the award explicitly mentions the "Screams without Words" article. Anair13 (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a that link it doesn't, unless you mean there's a link to it somewhere on that page. The Polk people [33] don't seem to mention it directly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is mentioned in the NYT corporate page, it's under the first instance of Israel with a hyperlink. The Polk page doesn't mention any specific articles, instead it says "for unsurpassed coverage of the war between Israel and Hamas. Times reporters used firsthand accounts to demonstrate how brutal and well planned the Hamas attack was and how vulnerable and ill prepared Israel had been to defend itself despite access to a 40-page Hamas battle plan."[34] Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a single event biography. Already existed on Hebrew wiki for past activities, and now exceptionally notable for the notorious NYT piece. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Strong pass of WP:JOURNALIST, generally quite notable. JZ (talk) 04:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anat Schwartz's journalistic contributions, as presently documented, do not meet the notability standards required under Wikipedia's guidelines for journalists. Specifically, WP:JOURNALIST and related notability guidelines suggest that a journalist must have significant recognition in their field, originated a substantial concept, technique, or significant body of work, or received substantial critical attention. Publishing a single article that has received attention is not sufficient to reach this bar. GidiD's arguments above convincingly demonstrate the absence of these criteria in Schwartz's case. Marokwitz (talk) 09:52, 8 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 14:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Jordanova[edit]

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

The topic does not meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG criteria. See source analysis table.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Нова книга: "Послушен брод што плови" на Јорданова – Вечер". www.vecer.press. Archived from the original on 2018-07-25.	~ Slavica Gadzova Sviderska is quoted as the editorial reviewer, her commentary is not independent work of literary criticism and could simply be the blurb	~ contains promotional statements including: "one of the most downloaded novels on Amazon" which is, of course, ridiculous	WP:ROUTINE book announcement	✘ No
Макфакс (2018-07-20). "Објавен третиот роман на Ирена Јорданова". МАКФАКС (in Macedonian). Archived from the original on 2020-02-03. Retrieved 2023-03-10.	~ same as previous, with a longer quote of the non-independent, editorial, review	~ same as previous, with extended promotional content	WP:ROUTINE book announcement	✘ No
"Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution. Archived from the original on 2012-04-25. "Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution (in Macedonian). Retrieved 3 March 2024.	~ The subject's story was published in the blesok.mk publication, leading to her short profile being included on the organization's website	? the biographical summary was probably supplied by the subject	short author biography on a publisher's website is not significant coverage	✘ No
Utrinski Vesnik Archived 2012-03-26 at the Wayback Machine - Novel of the Year Award, 2008 Archived 2011-07-22 at the Wayback Machine	this is the publication Utrinski vesnik writing about the literary award given by Utrinski vesnik; moreover Irena Jordanova was an employee for Utrinski vesnik as a journalist at some point^[1]	~ there are some pretty vapid statements here that don't resemble serious literary criticism ("Irena Jordanova heralds the arrival of a top-notch writer of literary prose in Macedonian literature, who will not be somewhere between one and the other, but will be among the best")	these are two articles about the same award, and Jordanova or her book are not discussed in any depth or specificity; note that Jordanova is mentioned as a competition entrant and did not win the award	✘ No
"The International Association of the Biennial of Young Artists from Europe". Archived from the original on 2011-08-24. Retrieved 2011-04-15.	profile of a participant at a literary event on that event's website; the book description was probably provided by the subject or the domestic organizers who selected her for participation in the international event	the unsigned description of the book can not be seen as a credible critique	a directory entry with a short book description	✘ No
https://iliili.com.mk/knigi/katalizator-33/	bood ad on the publisher's website	~ promotional content, but the statement that the English-language version is self-published is credible		✘ 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}}.

WP:BEFORE does not reveal any further usable sources.

It may be of interest to participants (but should not be seen as determinative with respect to deleting or keeping, and is not the movativator behind this AfD) that this article owes its existence to an old Macedonian book promotion initiative which was recently discussed at ANI.

References

^
- "Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution. Archived from the original on 2012-04-25.
- "Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution (in Macedonian). Retrieved 3 March 2024.

—Alalch E. 14:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Literature, and North Macedonia. —Alalch E. 14:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per source analysis above. Nothing useful in google search or gnews either. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find one interview for this person; otherwise the source analysis table shows none are valid sourcing. Delete for not meeting AUTHOR. Happy to reconsider if some book reviews or stories about the author in the native language. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I mentioned earlier on the talk page, three novels suggests that WP:NAUTHOR is a possible notability claim. But I can't find evidence for it. Ordinarily I would hesitate to call for deletion since I don't read Macedonian and am unfamiliar with the media architecture there - but given the ANI incident Alalch E. mentions, I think if there were other reviews, the promotors responsible for these articles would have linked them. So I'm inclined to believe they don't exist. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new one... We ask for sources, they get some "published" and immediately use them for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Unfortunately it seems they may have been at it for some time, so if you find any Macedonian writers with suspiciously timed reviews in the references, they might be worth a deeper look. -- asilvering (talk) 17:29, 6 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!} 00:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senet Inc.[edit]

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

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. None of the references in the article or that I can find meet the criteria, just mainly a bunch of (regurgitated or not) company PR. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page is made up of press releases and churnalism. A quick search found nothing meeting WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a major company in the WPLAN space, providing networks for IoT devices. There are tons of articles about it. It was recently announced that they are being purchased. I have updated the article to reflect this and added 3 new citations. Maxcreator (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all churnalism. Look at the dates and what they discuss. It is routine coverage of an acquisition that was sparked by a press release and then reprinted in blogs or industry publications. Doesn't come close to [{WP:ORGCRIT]]. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided are either not independent because they are press releases or trivial reporting on run-of-the-mill corporate events. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Racer (video game)[edit]

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources besides the Bleeding Cool and Nintendo Life pieces given in the article, and not including the restatement of official material, both are very short. QuietCicada chirp 13:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada chirp 13:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify WP:TOOSOON for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, no sources apart from the Kickstarter campaign. IgelRM (talk) 02:06, 8 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 Rajasthan cricketers#R as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 10:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Sharma (Rajasthan cricketer)[edit]

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

Very short page and a violation of Wikipedia:BIO. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, India, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it doesn't matter if it's short and how does it violate WP:BIO? Boleyn (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vote change per WP:BIO. Rohit Sharma does not meet notability and biography is not enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is short but has reasonable coverage from reliable sources to warrant an article on the player. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources currently listed are WP:SIGCOV, they're just basic information about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I revoted per WP:BIO guidelines. RangersRus (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are sources after his death, but they seem to just be WP:ROUTINE information about him and lists of teams he played for (and the 2 in this article are copies of each other too). Don't see enough WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--176.88.141.249 (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE, this has no policy-based reason for keeping. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Rajasthan cricketers#R Looks to fail WP:GNG, however there is a clear suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Looks to fail WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 04:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Polly Had a Dolly[edit]

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

Contested prod. Original nomination rationale, which I agree with, was: Unsourced aside from a personal blog. If this nursery rhyme is as historical as claimed, there should be ample sources verifying that it isn't just made up. Jfire (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this source (see "Children's Column" in the link provided) from 1871 that appears to have published an early version of this nursery rhyme. It’s also in this children's songbook from 1970—there are numerous indications it is likely historical, though popularity seems to explode mainly around the 1990s, just from a cursory overview of Google Books.

Someone else would need to fix the article, though—I googled this quickly out of curiosity, because I have a young child and (unfortunately) hear it constantly, but I do not have any more time to give to this task.

Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more references. This is notable and well sourced 84.78.242.197 (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are much more sources than when the PROD was initiated. Seems notable also. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable only if there are reliable sources that discuss it in detail. So far, the only sources in the article lyrics sites, content farms, and database entries. User:Hermes Thrice Great found some marginally better sources above, but they still do not cover the topic in depth. They aren't enough to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take a look a the newly added references. There are even references to the history of the rhyme. 90.167.203.25 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of these sources help establish notability.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.mamalisa.com/?t=es&p=2359		Self-published website		✘ No
https://www.classical-music.com/articles/miss-polly-had-a-dolly-lyrics			Lyrics and a couple sentences saying it is a nursery rhyme of unknown origin	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/teach/school-radio/nursery-rhymes-miss-molly-had-a-dolly/zbjcy9q			Lyrics only	✘ No
https://nurseryrhymecentral.com/miss-polly-had-a-dolly-nursery-rhyme-lyrics-history-video-lesson-plans-more/		Self-published website	~ Some coverage, but may be machine generated	✘ No
https://www.vedantu.com/poems/miss-polly-had-a-dolly	? Dead link	?	?	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20090201105833/http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/missmolly.htm		~ Government site, unknown author	Lyrics only	✘ 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}}.

Jfire (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I took my time to add more reliable, secondary sources. At least the nominator @Jfire should know that a nursery kids song like this should be notable regardless of insufficient sources. I made my research and I can see over 50 to 100 million views per video on YouTube for this song, it has also often received features on BBC radio. This topic is very NOTABLE. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my source assessment. Like the previous sources, these do not help establish notability.

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/kids/english/kids-songs-nursery-rhymes-baby-songs-miss-polly-had-a-dolly-kids-nursery-rhymes-in-english/amp_videoshow/73904230.cms	Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/arts/television/cocomelon-moonbug-entertainment.html	Single passing mention	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/kids/english/nursery-rhymes-in-english-children-songs-children-video-song-in-english-miss-polly-had-a-dolly/videoshow/90220581.cms	Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme	✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p0dzc48c/cocomelon-stories-176-miss-polly-had-a-dolly?seriesId=p09jn536&page=5	Children's television show that recites the nursery rhyme	✘ 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}}.

Jfire (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for consensus. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- If it's in the Roud Folk Song Index it's notable. Also, while some of the new sources are sketchy there are sufficient good ones to meet GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer evaluation of the newly added sources to see if they meet GNG and SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, and the latter table analysis is wrong as BBC and Times of India are reliable sources. dxneo (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the BBC is a reliable source for news reporting (WP:RSPBBC). That doesn't mean that when BBC School Radio posts content for children that recites a nursery rhyme, that means that the nursery rhyme is notable.

Regarding Times of India, there is actually no consensus that it is a reliable source for Wikipedia, even for its news reporting. See WP:TOI. But again, we're not talking about news reporting, we're talking about an affiliated infotainment site posting videos for kids which recite the rhyme. Such sources make no significant contribution to meeting the GNG.

To demonstrate notability, we need reliable sources that go beyond merely using the rhyme in a video for children, for instance by discussing the origin or history of the rhyme. As far as I can see, nobody has located this type of source. Jfire (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Central and Adams. Current sourcing is sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:46, 10 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!} 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Myawady season[edit]

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

Article for second tier season that lacks any claim to notability. Sending to AfD as the article is too old to be sent to draft and, in any case, the creator has a history of moving the article back to mainspace without any improvement. Converting this to a redirect would also likely get reverted by the creator and I don't see this being a likely search term at all. Frankly, I don't see why we have separate season articles when the parent article is still only a stub. It would make more sense to improve the parent article, surely. Similar cases include Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Cheshunt F.C. season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1992–93 FC Desna Chernihiv season. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Myawady F.C. as a viable ATD and to improve the parent and protect the redirect, although the article space block may prevent the revert. Star Mississippi 14:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern about retaining the content of this article into the parent article is that I have no idea where this squad list has come from. The 'references' in the article do not seem to support the information at all, unless I'm missing something. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooph I'd make mine more a selective merge what's sourced then. Star Mississippi 02:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. No point in redirect. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in redirect as target article also isn't sourced much. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There is not enough notability or coverage to establish a Myanmar clubs season article. Svartner (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete No SIGCOV, no real information provided in the article itself, very few sources. This article does nothing. Anwegmann (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No use putting a redirect as it's simply not have enough notability to have a separate article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:15, 10 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!} 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Nyein Kyaw[edit]

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

The sourcing is way below our minimum requirements for a BLP and no evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC being met. I found Myanmarload, which mentions that he is a former captain of Rakhine United and that he wanted to be a goalkeeper for the national team. It also contains a quote from him. This, on its own, is not enough to justify a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. Myanmar Digital Newspaper is just two passing mentions in a match report. SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG require multiple sources showing significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Person is not notable. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A handful of youth national team appearances doesn't cut it, even for a footballer from Myanmar. Anwegmann (talk) 04:00, 6 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!} 06:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaw Phyo Wai[edit]

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

BLP sourced only to the Facebook page of his employer, which fails WP:RS and WP:IS. The best source that I could find in any language was GNLM, which is just two mentions in squad listings. My Burmese searches didn't yield anything that would satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and history of creator. Star Mississippi 14:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one source provided. This is not enough to make a person, let alone living, notable. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one source, poor formatting, nothing else. Pretty obvious. Anwegmann (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 7 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDSF-LD[edit]

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

Station does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: that (at least announced) former MyNetworkTV affiliation notwithstanding (sourced only to a press release, which is not an independent source and does not count toward notability), this is yet another 2010s-launched DTV America/HC2/Innovate station without anything resembling significant coverage, or anything that could potentially lead to same. Yet another nominal survivor of last year's bulk nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject does not have standalone notability. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 9 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Songwriters on Parade[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I found a lot of passing mentions in sources in a WP:BEFORE search, but no sources with in-depth coverage. In searching newspapers.com I found a number of advertisements dating to as early as 1932, and I strongly question the truth of the 1931 dating based on zero coverage in any newspapers prior to April 1932. I found a number of articles mentioning the "show" in passing; often buried in the middle of film reviews as this "show" often entertained audiences in conjunction with movies shown at Loews. I put "show" in quotes because the "Songwriters on Parade" was really more of a vaudeville act billed alongside other vaudeville acts according to the advertisements and passing mentions. None of them actually reviewed the "Songwriters on Parade" performances though, and didn't have anything much to say about it. The most in-depth coverage I could find on "Songwriters on Parade" was for a British Lion film of that name; presumably named for the vaudeville act. There was also a radio program of that name, and a later stage runs in the 1940s and 1950s that were not connected to the earlier vaudeville act; although it was certainly referencing back to it. All of this to say, I'm not confident that an article can be built that isn't WP:OR with an absence of in-depth sources. Nobody seems to have written a concise history or overview anywhere that I could locate. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Entertainment. CptViraj (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found a Variety review with a substantial description of the act. They appear to have continued doing the act, at least occasionally, well into the 1940s. See also page 9 here. I bet it shows up in a lot of books about vaudeville. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers I already checked the standard vaudeville reference works and books. It has zero mentions in Vaudeville, Old & New: An Encyclopedia of Variety Performers in America (2007), The Encyclopedia of Vaudeville (2012), Vaudeville and the Making of Modern Entertainment (2012), Vaudeville Melodies: Popular Musicians and Mass Entertainment in American Culture, 1870-1929 (2017); etc. Likewise, no mentions in any of the standard Tin Pan Alley reference works. I think this is largely because the standard vaudeville encyclopedias and reference works tend to view vaudeville as over by the early 1930s. This Songwriters on Parade happened after the vaudeville circuits had died, and was largely playing in movie theaters alongside films. The point is I don't think anyone has written on this in a broader sense anywhere. The only books I could find covering anything were all about broadcasts of the radio program Songwriters on Parade on WWRL (which may had some sort of connection to the stage performances?), and the British Lion film made at Beaconsfield which took its name from the act. I'm fairly certain there are no books with in-depth coverage of this act. It's a topic that definitely deserves to be written on by an academic researcher. I'm just not sure it's possible to do on wikipedia with the available sources without resorting to WP:Original synthesis. I note that the entire second sentence fact failed verification when I looked at the cited source. For a two sentence long article that is pretty bad...4meter4 (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dadvan Yousuf[edit]

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

An article with a very problematic history. Its creator, Kcosip, has been blocked for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kcosip/Archive), but also previously showed COI, PROMO, and so on. It has been thoroughly edited by new single-purpose accounts. Talk:Dadvan Yousuf is full of IPs, blocked accounts. Likewise, this article appears to be a piece of PROMO. As another editor noted on its talkpage, the notability is very questionable per WP:NBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Aintabli (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, Iraq, and Switzerland. Aintabli (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just placed the article under indefinite ECP under WP:GS/Crypto due to what looks very like extensive commercial sockpuppetry - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of work on this article in August to clean it up, but it dropped from my Watchlist so I missed the edits over the last few months. The indefinite protection might help. I'd be happy to revert to my previous version which I feel is more balanced, and I did a lot of work getting it to that stage. But also happy to Delete. Qcne (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep was likely PROMO, but source 12 is solid, in a RS. [35], further coverage for opening a "crypto school" that was shut down by the regulators. These don't appear to be "allegations", but fraudulent activities. Doesn't perhaps pass criminal notability, but should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also coverage in French [36] and [37]. He's being investigated for money laundering [38] and [39] Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyae Moe[edit]

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

The article's single source is about a totally different player; it is instead about Kyaw Zin Htet. My own searches bring up plenty of coverage about a writer called 'Pyae Moe Thet War' but very little about this footballer. The best that I could find in Burmese was this trivial mention in Duwun. I can't see a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC from my own research. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pattern of disruptive creation although source falsification is new. NB I have p-blocked the editor from article space, but they're welcome to participate here and incubate articles in draft. Star Mississippi 14:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, especially with regards to living persons. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Star Mississippi's points above. Anwegmann (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject has not established notability as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines --149.172.122.230 (talk) 10:26, 7 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoku Hata[edit]

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

It doesn't appear to meet ~~WP:ORG~~WP:BIO / WP:GNG, or have a suitable WP:ATD. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. I would be really interested in the opinions of anyone who reads Japanese. Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as for ATD (just like I had mentioned in a similar Afd you had initiated....) redirect to List_of_Japanese_comedians#G seems suitable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Added some to the page. More exist.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per Mushy Yank -- notability has been established now. DCsansei (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we hear more about improvements to the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Cup USA[edit]

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

no particular indication of significance/notability here. [Note that I attend Cornell, have no connection with this org.] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No point in a 3rd when there's no indication of further input forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emoinu Fish Fest[edit]

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

Local one-day holiday fish market held once in 2023. Not notable. PepperBeast (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Manipur. PepperBeast (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Emoinu Fish Fest was held last year for the very first time. This year it was canceled due to public outcry and there is no indication if it will be held again. It was a one time event so far and because of this, it fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Even though it was celebrated once as of now, it clearly said that it was the first time celebration, indicating that it will celebrated next time too. Unfortunately, due to 2023–2024 Manipur violence, it was not celebrated only in this year 2024, but we can't predict in wikipedia that it will not be celebrated afterwards because WP:NOTCRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). The article already fulfilled WP:NPOV (neutrality), WP:NOR (no original research), WP:VERIFY (variability; nothing left uncited), WP:TITLE (common name title), WP:GNG (notability through the significance of the event to the public economically, culturally and socially) at each of their own rights. Countless articles are made in Wikipedia for a celebration of event organised in one year. What can we expect more? --Haoreima (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Maxwell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Texas. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[40]] and [[41]]. Not a ton of coverage but enough for a weak pass. User:Let'srun 20:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do the courtesy of providing non-dead links to the articles. [42] [43] Lettler^{hello • contribs} 16:49, 5 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!} 08:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage above fails YOUNGATH, SPORTCRIT, and GNG. Both sources are from the same local newspaper and cover her youth achievements, so are disqualified from counting toward GNG; also, the more substantial one is a submission rather than the product of independent journalism (it's a "special to the Star-Telegram") and the briefer one is a routine announcement. @Let'srun

JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 5 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual and Gender Diversity in Social Services[edit]

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

There is a dearth of coverage in reliable, secondary sources, to establish the notability of this journal, as reflected by no secondary sources having been cited in the article for the last 15 years. The only external link/source in the article is to the journal's homepage. I did not have much success in finding any suitable secondary sources, either under the journal's current or former name. Fails WP:GNG. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Sexuality and gender. MaterialsPsych (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This journal got this name just this year, before it was called Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services. Under that name, Miar lists quite a few databases, among them Scopus, that index the journal. WP:NJournals explains why I think that this means that this journal meets WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the indexing of this journal in different databases alone sufficient to demonstrate significant coverage and, ultimately, notability? You cite WP:NJOURNALS (which I reviewed before filing this nomination and will note is an essay, not a policy or guideline) and seem to be arguing that the journal meets criterion 1, specifically criterion 1b. Please correct me if I am mistaken. This specific criterion was subject to an extensive discussion a few months ago, where (if I'm reading it correctly) no consensus was reached as to whether a journal being indexed in "selective" databases is by itself sufficient to confer notability. Without providing my own opinion as to whether or not I believe a journal meeting this criterion is a sufficient indicator of notability, do any other secondary sources exist, besides these databases, that would help provide evidence for this journal's notability? MaterialsPsych (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, NJournals is an essay that explains why I think that inclusion in selective databases means that this meets GNG. Other people think differently, so is life. --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article currently has no independent sources and I was unable to find any. so the topic fails WP:GNG. WP:NJOURNALS says that Independent, third-party sources must exist for every topic that receives its own article on Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason that you don't find much is that the journal just changed its name with the first issue of 2024. I have expanded the article and added 6 references, 5 of them independent third party sources. WP:HEY. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I looked for sources using the old name, but possibly I didn't look hard enough. I will look at your sources shortly. TSventon (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear pass of WP:NJOURNALS, indexed in several selective databases and the official journal of several notable societies. That the new title gives little google hits is irrelevant. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet GNG. Does seem like a real and meaningful journal covering an important topic. We really need to find a WP:NJOURNALS that can get consensus to become a guideline. If I were king I'd probably put this just on the border of being something we should have. Seems to be about the median for the field. Impact score, if sources I'm finding can be trusted, is fairly low but rising. reluctant weak delete GNG not met, no SNG met. Almost an IAR keep from me. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I point to a relevant section of WP:N that seems to be overlooked some deletion discussions: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. If the only secondary coverage of this journal are various listings of it in different databases, that seems to barely, if at all, qualify as "significant coverage", and it seems unlikely that much more could ever be written about this journal besides the barebones factual information that is currently included in the article (I will concede that the quality and comprehensiveness of the article has improved somewhat compared to when I opened this discussion, but that doesn't have a bearing on the subject's notability). Such listings in databases may add to the "credibility" of the journal, but credibility is not the same thing as notability. I've seen the two occasionally get mixed together in different deletion discussions about academic journals (not specifically this current one), as I've gone back and read over them. I don't see how they are entirely the same thing. A journal can be credible and publish "good" research without being particularly notable according to Wikipedia's standards, and this journal does seem to fall into this area. There is nothing that seems to be particularly noteworthy about this journal when it is compared to all the other similarly situated journals out there that would support or warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. Since NJOURNALS is an essay, not an SNG that enjoys broader community consensus, I fall back to GNG, and I still remain unconvinced that this particular journal has received the significant coverage necessary to meet GNG. Until such time that NJOURNALS enjoys a broader acceptance by the community than it currently does, and there is a more convincing case made that a journal being listed in certain databases automatically provides significant coverage and makes it notable, this is where I find myself. MaterialsPsych (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, there is no consensus that meeting NJOURNALS establishes notability. Per MaterialsPsych, establishing consensus for NJOURNALS is beyond the scope of an AfD discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randykitty and Headbomb — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 10:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Film Development Board as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiranjibi Guragain[edit]

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

No indication of notability.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Malformed nomination given that "no indication of notability" is actually not a deletion criterion. Central and Adams (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG/WP:N guidelines. CSMention269 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Film Development Board. Seems to be an administrative officer. One of the reliable source describes his work, but I think it is just an administrative work and not his individual contribution. There are no in-depth coverages. nirmal (talk) 01:20, 5 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 Daystar Television Network stations as a viable ATD. Star Mississippi 02:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WETU-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Redirect or merge to List of Daystar Television Network stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure whether a redirect to the Daystar list or to WAXC-LD, which this station simulcast for a considerable time including when both stations were UPN affiliates,^[1] is more appropriate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Harmon, Rick (June 5, 1997). "Station to station trek: 'Star Trek: Voyager' travels to new television channel". The Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery, Alabama. p. 2F. Retrieved February 20, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Norrie (law)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV.SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, bad nomination, does not consider the correct notability standard (WP:PROF), which does not depend on SIGCOV. FRSE is an immediate pass of WP:PROF#C3. In addition I suspect he passes WP:AUTHOR for his books on Scottish family law but my ability to navigate law book reviews is limited. Here are a few: doi:10.3366/elr.2014.0239, JSTOR 27717595, doi:10.1017/S0731126500010994 —David Eppstein (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. relebent article, useful history that has not gone away or been subsumed. Rwthplb (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was created in 2007 but had languished since then. I've added some references- it does appear from book reviews that he was the author of some significant legal works, especially relating to the legislative frameworks surrounding parent and child. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FRSE meets WP:PROF#C3. Jfire (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies PROF and AUTHOR and GNG. James500 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate recognition by the wider academic community. The page could do with some tweaking to confirm with 2024 standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)
Keep: University position and FRSE sufficient for WP:NACADEMIC, also confirmed by Govt and Inquiry roles, and by multi-edition books on Scots family law and the Children's Hearings system. AllyD (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, WP:HEY, WP:PROF as a full professor emeritus at a very selective university, and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 7 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!} 06:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of honours of the Greek royal family by country[edit]

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

Tagged for citation for over 5 years, fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for stand-alone lists. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royalty used to give themselves and each other all sorts of honors. Didn't mean a thing. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:49, 4 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!} 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ely Cheikh Voulany[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:53, 3 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) 05:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I could not find any meaningful in-depth coverage about this individual, basically just statistics and database entries. Left guide (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage, especially during the era in which Voulany represented Mauritania. Anwegmann (talk) 03:42, 6 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 02:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Sholl[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Coverage only in trivial mentions in connection with non-notable MadaLuxe. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Fashion, Technology, United States of America, and Illinois. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails notability guidelines; agreeing on the nominator about the topic's trivial coverage, also one source that dedicates her sound more of a press release that I found on Google. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. Fails WP: GNG. I can't find WP: SIGCOV except trivial mention and passing blog posts! Otuọcha (talk) 06:39, 4 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 MV Rubymar or Red Sea crisis‎. A consensus on target is does not require an extension of this AfD. Star Mississippi 02:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of the Red Sea crisis[edit]

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

A pointless fork of content that's already in the MV Rubymar article where the environmental impact should be discussed. Step hen 01:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Geography, and Yemen. Shaws username . talk . 02:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Technically speaking, this article was around nearly 18 hours before the MV Rubymar (03:41, 24 February 2024‎ for this articles creation compared to 21:39, 24 February 2024‎ (MV Rubymar’s creation), which means that MV Rubymar would be the “pointless fork of content”. Nonetheless, for an AFD, this does not need to be deleted. I would maybe consider a redirect in the future, but not for an AfD, when timestamps prove this was the first of the two articles. RM should have been used, not AfD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WeatherWriter Abo Yemen ✉ 12:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MV Rubymar. At this point there is no need for a separate article for the oil spill from the MV Rubymar. Splitting would be okay if there are other aspects covered but those can also be merged to Red_Sea_crisis#Impact. Reywas92^Talk 16:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red Sea crisis or MV Rubymar. There's no reason for this to have its own article independently of these per WP:NOPAGE and WP:WHENSPLIT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MV Rubymar, or Red Sea crisis at a later date if other impacts than one ship are discussed with actual impact references rather than speculation. Step hen 21:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red Sea crisis. It's too short to be its own article, the other article already delves into environmental impact of the crisis. However, if environmental impacts are further discussed in the future of this war, then it would be appropriate to have its own article RamHez (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. It can always be re-created later. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 7 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!} 01:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary reference[edit]

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

I would like to nominate Secondary reference for deletion. I have previously PROD'ed it unsuccessfully. However, I still do not see that the concept is notable. The page has one article in its literature list (Doomen 2006), but I cannot find more that uses it in a relevant sense. Most Google Scholar hits are about "secondary reference points" or "secondary refernce material" or the like, which makes it difficult to find sources, other search engines gives even less relevant hits. The currently cited article is where the concept is where the concept was introduced, but neither Google Scholar or Semantic Scholar seems to have registered any citations to the paper at all. The page was created in 2007 by User:Jasperdoomen, who also dePRODded it. Before the PRODding proces, it was tagged as {{Confusing}} and {{Unreferenced}}. The latter may not be the appropriate tag for lack of referenes, but I'm not sure former has been adressed. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jasperdoomen (talk · contribs) writing about this in Wikipedia in 2007 any relation to the author of the sole source, J. Doomen according to the citation, that is the "first occurrence of the term" in 2006? I think that our project:no original research policy might get another airing here. A quick look around seems at first glance to indicate that the only person to have acknowledged Doomen's invention is Doomen, until a second glance finds that Doomen writing in 2012 is just a re-publication with some light edits (e.g. "Moby Dick" instead of "L'Etranger") of Doomen writing in 2006. So it does look like this is self-publication in Wikipedia of something that has not only not escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by the world at large in any independent sources at all, but isn't even continued by its own inventor in non-independent sources beyond 1 single source ever. This is original research. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to be so very primary with my deletion rationale, but crimeny....this is utterly fitting of why WP:NOTMADEUP (started by Uncle G himself ironically for a full-freakin'-circle moment!) was created. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this means, since all things on Wikipedia have been made up one day, and as for the 'reliable source', I leave it to you to judge whether the journal in which it appears qualifies as such. Jasperdoomen (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears to be a poorly written summary of a philosophical essay. There is no indication that this is a notable concept in philosophy. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication this is a notable concept. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No, this is not a notable concept in philosophy. ATDT (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT or redirect to Secondary source. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 7 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.

[1] 
"Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution. Archived from the original on 2012-04-25.
"Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution (in Macedonian). Retrieved 3 March 2024.

[2] "Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution. Archived from the original on 2012-04-25.

[3] "Irena Jordanova". Blesok Cultural Institution (in Macedonian). Retrieved 3 March 2024.

[Mont970605-2] Harmon, Rick (June 5, 1997). "Station to station trek: 'Star Trek: Voyager' travels to new television channel". The Montgomery Advertiser. Montgomery, Alabama. p. 2F. Retrieved February 20, 2024 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[1]