Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

29 March 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

Nathan Wade[edit]

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

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

Haji Zakaria bin Muhammad Amin[edit]

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

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

List of cult films[edit]

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

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

List of cult television shows[edit]

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

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

  • Delete, per WP:NOTDB. Even the wikipedia "article" (sub-section of a larger article) has a very vague definition of what cult media is. If there was some subjective criteria to determine whether media was cult or not, then this list might be of value. As it stands, it's just a random list of shows that someone once said has cult following, a term that is used indiscriminately in the media.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 13:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship[edit]

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

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

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

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

World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth[edit]

World Affairs Council of Dallas/Fort Worth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Satyakam Mohkamsing[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MicroSIP[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Keep. It has limited media coverage, but I'm not sure how much the media would cover something so esoteric. There is robust discussion about it (which indicates wide usage) on platforms like reddit and Youtube.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 13:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vinheteiro[edit]

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

This article about Vinheteiro fails to meet WP:NMUSIC.

Details about Vinheteiro in the article are not cited in accordance with source, which makes it seem to have reach the requirement of WP:NMUSIC e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro participated in Brazilian programs such as Jornal Nacional (seems to meet criteria 12), while the source 'Jornal Nacional' was about his video of playing of JN's theme song went viral. e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro performed in China with local musicians (seems to meet criteria 4), yet the source was about his videos' popularity on Chinese online video platform, Bilibili, where he launched online music courses.

If the article is considered as Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability rather than WP:NMUSIC, I doubt its sources are significant enough to meet WP:GNG. --EleniXDDTalk 07:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete per nom. i cannot access the second source provided above, but the first source appears to be an interview and does not contribute to notability. ltbdl (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gopal Snacks[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Rosenberg[edit]

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

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

Agha Iqrar Haroon[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Open Book Collective[edit]

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

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Håvar Bauck[edit]

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

Bio appears promotional, lacks verification from reputable sources, and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines BoraVoro (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Engineering Company[edit]

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

Notability has not been adequately demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Banas (1300)[edit]

Battle of Banas (1300) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

@ImperialAficionado the battle isn't a part of siege of chittorgarh 1303. Allauddin sent the forces to defeat Hammiradeva , and the battle took place at Banas
Khilji sultans in Rajasthan
Thus Ulugh Khan marched with an army of 80,000 to plunder and lay waste the Chthamana country. When the armies, of Islam reached the river 'Varnansa' (Banas), they found it difficult to march through the pass leading to Hammira's territory. Ulugh Khan, therefore, encamped therefor some days and burnt and destroyed the villages of its neighbhbourhood. When the misdeeds of the Muslim army were brought to Hammira, was then engaged in religious rites, for he has not yet completed this 'Muniverata.'2 That Hammira at the moment was busy in the performance of some religious rites has also been stated in the Surjana Charita. So Hammira could not personally take the field and instead sent two of his generals, Bhimasimha and Dharmasiraha, to drive away the invaders. They gained a decisive victory over the Muslim hosateBanas a and large number of the Muslim soldiers were killed inction Narook (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is no mention of "Battle of Banas". We can't keep it. Thanks. Imperial[AFCND] 10:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm inclined to say delete since it seems to fail notability guidelines. But, if it can be merged with the wider war/effort/offensive that it was a part of, that would be better. If not, delete.--Esprit15d • talkcontribs 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ontala (1599)[edit]

Siege of Ontala (1599) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons are listed below:

  • The article title, "Siege of Ontala (1599)," appears to be fabricated. There are no reliable sources mentioning either "Siege of Ontala (1599) [3]" or simply "Siege of Ontala [4]" that occurred in 1599. This name seems to be invented, as no historian refers to the military conflict by this name .
  • Among all the sources cited in the article, with the exception of "Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs," all other sources fall under either WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, or WP:V. The article lacks coverage in enough reliable secondary sources, thus failing to meet the notability criteria WP:GNG. The information can be easily merged to any of the parent articles. Imperial[AFCND] 09:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st
siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate
source 2:
2nd
Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned
Source 3:
3rd
The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan
It's a historical battle lol Narook (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)
Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men. Narook (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado aren't these sources enough? Narook (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado the article should not be deleted
Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st
siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate
source 2:
2nd
Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned
Source 3:
3rd
The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan
Source 4 : Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)
Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men
Narook (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ontala is also pronounced as Untala
The annual of the east- page 136
siege of Untala, who, descending calmly from his elephant, placed his body on the spikes of the high portal, to serve as a cushion for the beast to push against...
Calcutta Review Volumes 104-105 page 8
Volumes 104-105
Rana Amara Sing , who recovered Chitor after its last capture by Akbar , and the occasion was the attack on the fortress of Untala , whose ruins still Stand between Chittor and udaipur Narook (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are unreliable and not verifiable. The deletion discussion is not a place to make questions against me. If you could do WP:HEY. Go for it. But as long as there is no reliable sources calling it "Siege of Ontala", we can't keep this on mainspace. It's all about naming an event. Imperial[AFCND] 10:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado Unreliable?? Seriously? Do you think historians who've written these books are fools? Narook (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:V, and WP:RS. Not evert historian is reliable. And we are definitely not making articles for each and every military conflicts here. See WP:Guide to Deletion and please do not fill the page with unnecessary messages. Imperial[AFCND] 10:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado it was a major decisive victory for the kingdom of Mewar, stop Mughal POV pushing Narook (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- the article shouldn't be deleted see WP:RSes. We have multiple sources about siege of ontala 1599 Narook (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado before adding articles for deletion, please discuss about the article in the talk section Narook (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yamini Aiyar[edit]

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

non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bandanwara[edit]

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

None of the reliable sources WP:RS refer to the military conflict as the "Battle of Bandanwara," nor do any historians recognize it by that name. The title is a fabricated one, which contradicts the criteria for creating an article about a military conflict. The article does not meet the notability WP:GNG, as the sources merely mention it as a military conflict, without dedicating even a single page completely to it. Moreover, there is no record of a battle called the "Battle of Bandanwara" in the specified year mentioned in the article. Imperial[AFCND] 08:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein national badminton team[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, one local article in Liechtenstein, otherwise either passing mentions (e.g. the Faroese articles just state that their team beat Liechtenstein, it doesn't give any actual attention to the Liechtenstein team), databases, or non-independent sources (organizers and the like). Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but not necessarily strongly - I guess you could make the argument this would be better merged, but there was a lot of coverage of the political portion of the event. I am finding some sustained coverage, especially because Albanese was invited back for the final. SportingFlyer T·C 09:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The match did recieve significant coverage in March 2023 in India. The series article you mentioned does not have much as compared to the content of this article. Moreover, if you do see, that series article itself is in an ongoing split discussion. Similar events like Namaste Trump have pages; and this was followed by an entire match.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23; unlike Namaste Trump or Howdy Modi or the bajillion other gimmicky diplomatic events, this one isn't independently notable. Coverage is routine and retrospective coverage is basically non-existent. AryKun (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is already in an existing WP:SPLIT discussion, I dont deem it appropriate for the contents of this article to be merged as a singular match when they are contemplating seperating entire tours.
    • It did recieve decent coverage as well as some political fallout. As stated above, I support keeping
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That split discussion has had no comments for a year and is not caused by the article being too long, so isn't relevant to whether this article should be merged into it or not. There's also many choices for merge targets, including articles about Australia-India cricket and relations. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if that merge discussion hasnt had comments for a year, plumping this content there will make it worse.
    • As stated by @SportingFlyer, and me; there was political coveage, I have tried to add a bit more. It was more than a cricket match, and I have included all the valid information on the trip.
    Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That split discussion centers on whether it was one or two distinct tours. If it gets split, this can be merged to whichever tour the Test series was part of. AryKun (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still does not mean this article cant exist, per my existing points Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302 I beg to differ on your original point. The event getting unique branding preparations and then the event actually getting carried out constitute an article here. By that logic, I mighth have seen half a dozen good articles with less relevance than this; but thats the point - its all relevant, valid and cited information. It has failed GAN's but the reasons were for the article to improve further (which it has), and not actually take it down. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 as this event was about diplomatic relations between two cricket playing countries when Australian team was in India 2023 for test matches against India. This event is not notable for a separate page with such title but fits best on page Australian cricket team in India in 2022–23 where a segment can be created about this celebration. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is about a test series. Having so much information about a single test is unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page.
    That particular page in question is already cluttered as it is. Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above; it doesn't help that the article is in extremely poor condition—essentially a badly-written, promotional political puff piece, which is unacceptable. There are only a couple of reliable sources which provide SIGCOV of the events, and they all fall under WP:ROUTINE. Every other non-sporting citation does not contribute to notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain this? How exactly is it a promotional junk piece? Each source is cited to the best citation available, and contains all the information about the event and all the unique things taking place Pharaoh496 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "all of the unique things taking place" can you really not hear yourself? Now find sources which show notability: read what WP:GNG says, and explain why the sources fulfil those criteria. Remember, you are arguing that the "75 Years of Friendship through Cricket Event" is notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding the reason to merge - Topic relevant for standalone article

I would like to thank editors @AirshipJungleman29@RangersRus@AryKun@Joseph2302 for commenting here. I would like to raise some points here.
  • This was not just a cricket match: It was a 75-year anniversary celebration of cricket relations between the two countries + of international bilateral relations + of the success of an educational agreement. All of that information is included. It would be unfair to deem it as just a cricket match article.
  • Notwithstanding the above fact: The description of the entire match has also been included as it was at the start of the match which was played. So has the toss coin, the jersey exchange and the cap handing.
  • This event did have significant political coverage in India and Indian media; as well as some political fallout, and I as the editor of this page have done my best to add citations and backgrounds.
  • As stated before, the series article already has the required information of ten matches - it will be unconventional and inconvenient, not to mention unprecedented for a conventional wikipedia test series page to contain detailed information of this event. On top of it, even though it was a year ago, its undergoing a split discussion (with majority voting in favour), furthering the argument of not plumping this content onto that page.
  • This page has failed a GAN not for lack of nobility, but simply lack of citations which has then since been changed as much as possible, and I as, one of the principal editors currently, will constantly keep looking to improve the article and take suggestions even after the conclusion of this discussion.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion Pharaoh496; your behaviour is becoming disruptive and your attitude towards this page is beginning to verge on WP:OWN. I have hatted the above monologue which adds absolutely nothing new to the discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mary Ikoku[edit]

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

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

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

Kehinde Ipaye[edit]

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

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

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

Daily Thread[edit]

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

Surprisingly poor sourced, not notable company. WP THREE? Rodgers V (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graue[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find sources demonstrating notability. An alternative to deletion is a redirect to List of Lost characters. toweli (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sad pop[edit]

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

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

Aspose.Words[edit]

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

Incompliance with WP:N, WP:NSOFT, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT as well as lack of purpose, and advertising. Ztimes3 (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and authority[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Draftify I'm inclined to support deletion because the article reads more like an essay, which doesn't fit within WP guidelines as outlined in WP:NOTESSAY. However, Rollidan has pointed out that there may still be a chance to improve the article. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Moeis[edit]

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

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

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

Karamunsing Complex[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns 11 months ago. A search for sources only found routine coverage rather than indepth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 05:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Iyobo[edit]

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

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

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

WODR-LD[edit]

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

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

Kooi-Ying Mah[edit]

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

Only 2 articles link to this. Nothing in gnews or Australian database trove. 2 small mentions in google books. Fails WP:ARCHITECT. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove. Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young. Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)." As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.LPascal (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like many AFDs these days, we need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E-Dyario[edit]

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

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

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

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

David Bates (poet)[edit]

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

Delete: fails notability, GNG, SIGCOV, POET. Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: as mentioned above, does not meet WP:POET. His only somewhat famous work is "Speak Gently", but I couldn't find good sources even for that. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nica Digerness[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has neither won a medal at an international competition, nor has she won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Neudecker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has neither won a medal at an international competition, nor has he won the U.S. national championships at the senior level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intercom Plus[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable subject. This is a proprietary software program used internally at a single company. The article currently has no sources, and I can't find any good sources to add; the most I've found is a few brief summaries in company publications and old newspaper articles. It might warrant a mention in the Walgreens article, but it doesn't need its own article. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ventana Wilderness Alliance[edit]

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

A run of the mill local "cause" organization with little coverage beyond local area. Coverage in broader area sources are trivial, such as "Sykes had become an “attractive nuisance,” said Mike Splain, executive director of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance."

An article on company/organization needs significant, independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources and at least one of those needs to be a regional or national source. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Houbeib[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A regular national team player who plays in a league that gets pretty much zero regular coverage. He has no chance of SIGCOV even though he is clearly notable for Mauritanian football. Anwegmann (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Zero regular coverage" and "no chance", you mean coverage in English, right? I wouldn't know how to conduct a meaningful search in his alphabet, but he featured at the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations just a month ago. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His appearance at 2024 AFCON speaks to my point, I think. The Mauritanian and Iraqi leagues don't receive much coverage from trustworthy media sources—French, English, or Arabic—and individual Mauritanian players in the local league and more "obscure," for lack of a better word, leagues receive even less. My point is that a strict interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, without taking larger context and performance into account, skews coverage on Wikipedia away from non-Western players, venturing into WP:BIAS territory. Because Houbeib has appeared more than a dozen times for a national team and appeared in a major continental tournament recently that was broadcast around the world, to me, his notability is established. Would I like to see more significant coverage in classical media sources? Yes, of course. But in this case, I don't think it's required to keep the article. This isn't a third-division semi-pro player who represented his country once at under-19 level. This is a regular player for a national team that qualified for and played in a continental tournament. Anwegmann (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just made aware of this AfD in another discussion circling around the possibility of inherent notability due to national team caps. If anything, this provides some precedent for what I'm saying. I acknowledge, though, that 15 national team caps is a bit low for inherent notability, given the precedent established in the linked AfD. That said, though, appearance in the 2023 Africa Cup of Nations reasonably adds to this player's notability. I would be willing to change my vote to "draftify" if we can reach some kind of consensus about this. Anwegmann (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the cap tally is now 21. I also believe that we are now far, far into WP:BIAS territory. There is a difference between a performing team like Mauritania and insignificant countries (within football) such as Belize and Nepal. But, alas: sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't fully agree that there is a difference between national teams, as they each have fundamental value in world football, I agree with your sentiment and overall point here. Houbeib continues to appear for a national team that recently performed in a continental tournament. This is well into the realm of WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep - He has international caps therefore he is undoubtedly notable. IJA (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline states this? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if even the editors advocating to keep this article acknowledge there is not and will not be IRS SIGCOV then clearly a standalone article is not warranted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Strong keep - coverage found here (signing), here (signing), here (contract extension), and probably many more Arabic-language sources. All I did was search the player's Arabic name (الحسن سالم احويبيب) and some immediate results came back. I can't read or understand Arabic so my search ended after these three articles— but I'm sure there's way more. Then, we need to consider that the bar for Mauritanian footballers' coverage is lower than for Western players, as there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general. Lastly, this guy has made 20+ caps for a prominent African national team, and has competed at a MAJOR tournament. The evidence of coverage existing, the threshold being at a certain level, and the prominence of the player all bring me to the conclusion that article needs to be kept & improved. I'd even suggest a page move to fix currently incorrect page title. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman and The Herald: Sources found. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should ping JoelleJay. I simply relisted. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are the definition of routine, trivial transactional coverage, not to mention non-independent since almost everything in them is quoted from the club. And the first two are essentially identical! Why would you link to those sources as evidence of SIGCOV if you didn't even read them?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these sources don't appear enough. GiantSnowman 19:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman and JoelleJay: Y'all have your bar set way too high for coverage of this player. You must remember that the subject is a Mauritanian footballer—not English, German, but Mauritanian. Also, playing at a major tournament like AFCON definitely means that Arabic-language sources exist... deleting this article would start a slippery slope in which hundreds non-Western articles would get deleted simply due to a lack of easily-findable coverage by editors that exclusively use Latin-alphabet keyboards. Take some time to do a proper Arabic-language search instead of bashing this article and not giving it much thought.
In my opinion, the surface-level presence of Arabic-language sources shows that relative to the depth of all coverage of Mauritania-related topics, this player has some kind of notability. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more digging shows plenty of stuff about him popping up. this, this, and notably this. Yes, there is a routine feel to the coverage, but there's just a point where you have to understand that the bar is not as high as it would be for a player playing in Western Europe. The fact that there's just this many articles on a relatively obscure Mauritanian footballer says something. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is deleted, we could probably delete 50% of all articles about footballers from Arabic-language countries where media coverage is harder to find. That's not a good thing. I understand there are deletionists, but this isn't an article that should be deleted, especially considering how prominent this player is in African football. (Yes, competing at two AFCONs is quite prominent, I think). Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is just naturally more media coverage of sports in Western countries in general is literally why more athletes from Western countries are notable. If a subject doesn't get IRS SIGCOV then by definition it is not notable! What you are arguing is for us to reinstate presumptions of coverage--or even inherent notability--based on the subject reaching some arbitrary, subjective level of achievement, but such presumptions have been repeatedly and near-unanimously rejected.
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 54#Renewed proposal for association football (soccer)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 55#Should we soften the phrase "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."?
Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 52#Proposed Notability criteria track and field athletes (see WP:NTRACK) The community has rejected participation-based notability criteria even when a single appearance in some league or tournament empirically predicts SIGCOV 100% of the time; there is thus 0% chance of us accepting any criterion whose SIGCOV predictive power isn't supported by any evidence at all. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 RfC made it clear the requirement for SPORTCRIT SIGCOV applies to all athletes, regardless of location or time. We do not change our bar for coverage based on where the subject is from. Conferring notability to some geographical subset of subjects via the exact same routine, trivial, and non-independent sources we dismiss for subjects everywhere else in the world is patronizing and would only encourage applying those same standards to progressively less encyclopedic tiers of Western subjects. And presuming actual SIGCOV does exist based only on the presence of such low-quality non-GNG sources is exactly what was deprecated through wide consensus two years ago.
The 4th source you link is identical to source #3, #5 is trivial coverage of the same topic, and literally the only secondary independent coverage of Houbeib in #6 is Al-Zawraa player, Mauritanian Al-Hassan Ahouibib, joined the team's training today, Monday, after the end of his vacation, which was granted to him with the cancellation of last season. The rest is taken directly from the club. This is the case for all of the sources you've linked: a couple sentences of routine transactional announcements interspersed with "the club said [blahblahblah]" and more general updates on the club as a whole. JoelleJay (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this article aught to be deleted, I urge you to start nominating every single other similar player article that has "less" notability than this guy. You'll find that there's much more coverage of this guy than some other players who survived AfD in the past or that have articles that happen to exist despite probably failing GNG/SPORTCRIT. I stand firmly in my belief that we're being too harsh here and that the coverage is enough. Also, how did you brush by these sentences?
1. Al-Hassan Ahwaibib is considered one of the reasons for the strength of Al-Zawraa’s defense during the past season, due to its consistent level during the tournament.
2.Huwaibib plays as a libero. He played great matches with Al-Zawraa last season, and succeeded in convincing coach Ayoub Odisho to renew with the team and lead the defense line...
These seem like notable secondary independent coverage of the subject. That's three different sources offering secondary coverage. Who says there isn't more? I can't properly do an Arabic-language search and this is what I found easily. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find significant, Arabic-language coverage, then great., I'll happily re-consider. GiantSnowman 19:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Andriy Nikolaychuk[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobel Medical College[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

AI video upscaler[edit]

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

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

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

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

Alison Green[edit]

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

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

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

TLAtlak 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sydney Morning Herald piece is an interview, hence it should not be considered an independent source article appears to be an interview-style piece with a "he said, she said" format, and it requires a subscription to access the entire content. Additionally, the Australian Financial Review article is published by a non-staff contributor and should be treated as self-published sources, similar to many at WP:RSP. GSS💬 17:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I evaluated my sources according to SIRS and wrote the content around this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you approved these sources. No offense, I just really want to understand what has changed since then. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact, I never approved these sources, which is why I declined your submission. These sources do not establish notability because they do not provide the required coverage for the subject, as pointed out above. GSS💬 17:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft was just accepted today, I thought the editor's approval depends on the appropriateness of the sources. GSS suggested de-orphaning the page and improving the categories. I made these changes but now I'm a bit confused, was the fix that bad?
Also, I found another source that mentioned the subject, but just in case, I removed it now if it was causing the problem. Fact and Curious (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : if these are the same person [7] and [8], I think we have notability. Australian person in the New York Times could be possible I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good work digging that up. NYT is an international publication, so it's squarely within their breadth. TLAtlak 20:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: The article from The New York Times seems to be an opinion piece, as it focuses not on the individual herself but rather on her views, evident in the frequent use of phrases such as "saying" and "said". Conversely, The Cut article is written by a different "Alison Green" and is unrelated to the subject of this article self-published, bearing the name "by Alison Green". GSS💬 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no. That NYT columnist is not the subject of this article. That columnist (born abt. 1974), is the daughter of an American journalist named, Steve Green, who died in 2001. The subject of this discussion (born 1986) is the daughter of John M. Green. —Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well spotted. Thank you for your attentive review. @Oaktree b:, considering these findings, it may be worth reevaluating. 04:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, without the two sources I listed above, I'm not sure. I can't really !vote one way or another. Struck my prior vote/comment, just going to sit this one out, so to speak. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough sources that exist (both in and out of the article) to establish notability under WP:GNG. I have found 4. Plus also I think it is safe to say the AFR article counts towards GNG. It is more than just quotes and SIGCOV refers to the substance of a source (ie. a passing mention) rather than the length of a source. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GMH Melbourne: I agree that there are articles, but simply having them doesn't automatically make someone notable; they should provide significant coverage, not just passing mentions or interviews. As mentioned before, the AFR article is written by a contributor. Can you please list the four articles here for review? Just saying you found four isn't enough; they need to be shown for proper consideration. GSS💬 04:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are the sources I have found (not already in the article) that count towards WP:GNG: [9] [10] + the AFR and SMH ones already mentioned. I understand that this is a borderline article but I think there is enough to meet GNG with at least two sources that qualify. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing the sources. To pass GNG, the subject needs coverage in independent, reliable sources. While the sources you mentioned are undoubtedly reliable, but they lack independence, so let's examine them closely. As I mentioned earlier, the article by ARF was authored by a contributor, not staff. According to WP:RSP, there's a consensus that such sources lack independence and should be treated as self-published. The SMH piece you mentioned is an interview, which is also not independent.
    Now, let's discuss the two links you provided. The first one by ARF isn't about the subject of this AfD. The article includes comments from multiple people and heavily relies on their words. Similarly, the one from the Daily Telegraph heavily depends on phrases like "he said" and "she said". Since they aren't independent, they are insufficient to establish notability. GSS💬 04:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This discussion was relisted twice in the same day so consider this the second, not third, relisting. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the subject is notable and there are sources to demonstrate that. Nathan N Higgers (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Nathan N Higgers (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Just stating "there are sources" doesn't actually establish anything. You need to specify which sources, because as I mentioned above and in my deletion rationale, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. While there are some sources, they aren't about this person, but about a different person under the same name. Additionally, it is suspicious that you were registered today and your first edit was to !vote here, so I highly suspect there is a case of WP:PAID and/or socking. GSS💬 05:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau County Soil and Water Conservation District[edit]

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

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

List of Five grains in world culture[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Lists. WCQuidditch 05:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret as it’s fascinating but a textbook case of WP:OR. Mccapra (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a wild-growth abnormality of a disambiguation page that is contrary in almost every way to MOS:DAB and while it could be fixed, there is a "five grains" disambiguation page at Five grains (disambiguation), so the result would be a duplicate of that page at the wrong name—or—the page is a spectacular free-association style failure of a set-index article, and we can not and should not have such a set index article and in this respect the page can not be fixed. I am against redirecting because the name is nonsensical.—Alalch E. 12:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless we can copy some of it to WP:OR as an example, after all it's CC-by-SA so why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMAC (FM)[edit]

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

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

Largest Data Breaches of United States Citizen Data[edit]

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

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

Burkhard Garweg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep Prove has today been published linking Garweg to Daniela Klette see here. (Apart from that he is a personality in the international media with detailed information.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This doesn't look like significant coverage: In het huis van de gearresteerde RAF-terrorist Daniela Klette zijn sporen gevonden van twee andere gezochte RAF-terroristen; Ernst-Volker Staub en Burkhard Garweg. Dat meldt de recherche in Nedersaksen. Een foto bewijst dat Burkhard Garweg in het appartement van Klette in Berlijn is geweest. Op het beeld is te zien dat hij bij haar thuis op de bank zit tussen twee honden in. Waarschijnlijk onderhielden hij en Klette nauw contact.
    I would be persuaded by sources with biographical information about this subject; the above is circumstantial evidence and speculation. signed, Rosguill talk 16:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • This article proves that they are linked. That’s what I’m saying 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Not to the satisfaction of WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. Your comments here largely underline the importance of abiding by this policy and converting the article back to a redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note regarding the rationale of the nominator In contrast to other 3rd generation RAF members Daniela Klette and Ernst-Volker Staub, Garweg has not actually been convicted of any crime —> Klette is also not (yet) convicted. But please correct me if I’m wrong. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spaghetti Taco[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it has a significant enough cultural impact to deserve it's own article Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Something would have enough cultural impact if it was not only limited to five episodes. Something that would have cultural impact, for example is Ellen DeGeneres in 1997 "coming out" on her show- this led the way to the concept of coming out for LGBT. But spaghetti tacos has no significance.
    I see that you're new to Wikipedia so welcome by the way. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the welcome! The reason I originally made this article was because I read the article for Yakisoba-pan, which reminded me of the spaghetti taco. I just wanted to put it in the see also section Fwedthebwead (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could put it into the article for Yakisoba-pan as a separate section e.g. In popular Culture instead of an article. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright that sounds good :D Sorry for inconveniencing you! Fwedthebwead (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the critereon Wikipedia usually uses to decide if something deserves or doesn't deserve an article is significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, i.e. WP:Notability. Which is mostly independent from how often it appeared in its original source. We have one such source in the article, I believe. Are there enough out there to support a full article? Checking this should be done by the nominator before the nomination as explained in WP:BEFORE. What were the results? (The Google news search looks pretty promising). Does anyone else want to look now? Daranios (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 19:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep: It's got an article in the NY Times, the Independent [13] and the Pocono Reocrd [14]. Decent sourcing, I think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are enough reliable sources available to satisfy notability. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gan Kofim[edit]

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

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

  • Comment: It seems to have been nominated for awards [15], so there is a strong possibility it's a notable film, but I agree with the nom; sources used now in the article aren't valid. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Israel. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NFILM, a film meets notability if "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." The film received full-length reviews in a number of national publications in Israel, including Calcalist, Ynet, Haaretz, Walla, and Mako. These should be added to the article, but for now are enough to establish GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Longhornsg, but the article does need work. FortunateSons (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen[edit]

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

First, unless it can somehow be confirmed that this guy is the owner of this company (and even if he is) I don’t know how this is notable other than part of the company article. There is an allegation of ownership in the reference article, but his ownership (or even employment) is denied by the company’s lawyer said that this guy acted as an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee. Second, Weird story about an unnamed landscaping company to domain registrar? I’m not sure how this is notable. If anything, he maybe gets a mention on the underlying company pages that he’s allegedly the owner if even that hits the bar, but i don’t see that he deserves his own article. Third, my gut feeling is that this appears to be a hit piece as there are allegations of neo nazi ties, etc. Caution must be exercised in these types of allegations. The Registered Agents Inc. Company confirmed ownership of Epik in the press release cite (as of Feb 2024, not 2023), but there doesn’t seem to be anything but an allegation about Keen and this could be considered libelous without a more solid citation. But again, my feeling is that this article is a hit piece if the guy even actually exists. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something is rotten about this deletion from the nominator, who suddenly came back on en.wiki after a ten-year hiatus and seems to have had issues within the registered agent topic area in the past; three soild sources for the article from mainstream outlets about the subject, and a rationale that may be over the line and hitting WP:NLT regarding allegations being libelous. Epik is also heavily known for hosting sites most hosts wouldn't touch and has been exhaustively documented. @Dougieb:, please declare any conflicts of interest immediately and reel back the legal threats because that's not how we play at all in article or AfD spaces. I am also pinging @Amigao: and @Grayfell:, who dealt with a certain editor, Dunkinidaho (talk · contribs) who has been trying to remove Keen's name from the Epik article despite the Wired/WaPo sourcing; also declare if you are related to that account. Nate (chatter) 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about addressing the crux of my AFD rather than attacking the messenger? MY AFD is not WP:NLT because I didn’t make a threat, I just reasonably suggested that before tagging someone a Neo Nazi (which could be considered per se defamation), perhaps there should be some solid ground for doing so. Having read the cited articles (which the actual crux of one is using fake personas), it is not even clear whether “Dan Keen” even exists which is how I ended up here in the first place today. You are mirepresenting that there are “three solid sources” for Dan Keen existing much less being owning this company or being associated with Neo Nazis. The only source mentioning him is the Wired article which ALLEGES that he owns the company, but later notes that the company said he was an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee of the company. Why is there no other source anywhere tying this guy to the company anywhere? I it another fake name as described in the cited articles? The Epik company is “heavily known for hosting sites most wouldn’t touch”, that is not in question, but this isn’t about that. This is about the claim that this guy owns it, and if he bought it, is he a Neo Nazi? If there is anything substantive tying this guy (if he exists) to either company, please point it out because I’m interested myself, but everything I’ve found just cites the Wired article. No I’m not related to Dunkinidaho , however from what I’ve seen, the Registered Agent Inc. Company appears to be based in Idaho, so there is your clue. If Keen does exist and his company did buy Epik, are they still hosting these sites? Or did they boot them? From the press release it seems the latter, so if this is not a hit piece, why mention it? I have zero conflicts of interest and actually want someone to prove me wrong here and put up something substantial. But in the meantime, this smells like a hit piece which would be funny if the guy ends up being another of the alleged “fake personas.” @Amigao seems to have had issues with sourcing in the past, so there is that. Dougieb (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As MrSchimpf explains, this nomination was your first edit in almost exactly ten years. You also have a warning on your talk page for adding spam to National Registered Agents, Inc. back in 2008. You're not helping your case by getting all indignant and verbose about the obvious WP:COI issues this raises. Oh, and WP:NLT absolutely does apply here. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We follow what the WP:RSes state. According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc., following the acquisition of Epik. It should be noted that WP:NLT is hard Wikipedia policy. Agreed with MrSchimpf that we need to get any COI issues here openly declared in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. - Amigao (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several reliable sources discuss Keen in sufficient depth, thus meeting WP:NBIO. Per the cited sources, including Epik's own press release, Keen's company isn't merely acting as a registered agent for Epik, it is providing registered agent services to Epik's customers. More sources and more context would, obviously, be welcome. There are potential WP:BLP issues here, but these would have to be addressed directly, not obliquely as a WP:CRYBLP attempt to censor the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 01:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]