Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Europe. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Europe|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Europe.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe/archive

Purge page cache

watch

General[edit]

List of UEFA Europa League broadcasters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Super Cup broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe[edit]

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

This is a simple listing without contextual information and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The few references available are about individual programming and not the programming as a whole. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Pakistan, Europe, and United Kingdom. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This channel seems to be an international service mostly consisting of Pakistani shows that are not specific to it. No original programming, no list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm generally agree of it per WP:RS & WP:GNG for CNMall41 and Sammi Brie. Although the references are few, this is similar to Hum TV but this article is a broadcast coverage from Pakistan. Not original programming and no specific list occurs. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beast poetry[edit]

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

Completely unsourced barring quotes. No indication of importance. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Poetry, and Europe. DrowssapSMM 02:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in one form or another. It may be the case that Ziolkowski is in fact the first/primary/only scholar to use the term "beast poetry" specifically. However, he seems to be influential in the field. Talking Animals: Medieval Latin Beast Poetry, 750-1150 has 180+ citation in Google Scholar and numerous reviews ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). One option could be to re-frame the article to be about the book. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics cites Ziolkowski in the entry on Beast epic, so if nothing else we could merge there. But I'm inclined to keep given that it seems to be an accepted scholarly genre. Jfire (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify, convinced by Jfire. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a search under “bestiary poetry” or “poetic bestiary” suggests the topic is notable, and one of these terms might serve as an alternative title. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of Europe[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with a clear primary topic and one other recently created and comparatively niche topic. I propose to delete this page, redirect the title to European Federation, which covers this concept, and add a hatnote there. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The political entity on this dab is not much more than political aedvertising. No elections, no seats. For the rest: as by the nominator. The Banner talk 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note User:BD2412, since earlier history was merged to what is presently titled European Federation, much of the history is ineligible for deletion per WP:MAD. The page may still be redirected, and WP:AFD remains a correct venue for such a discussion per WP:ATD-R. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:10EB:6979:4B48:D793 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The history itself can always be moved under a different title. BD2412 T 16:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  User:BD2412 sure, but that seems to be needless extra work since the result is that instead of simply targeting A from B you first move B to some other title C before targeting A with both, what's the point? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you're saying. I have no problem with this being maintained as a redirect to European Federation with the current history intact; it should not exist as a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 17:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree, and that's fine WP:AFD is explicitly a correct venue to establish consensus for a WP:BLAR, just wanted to make sure we stayed within policy. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion, unless "European Federation" (rather an awkward name, especially the capitalised "F") is moved to "United State of Europe". --Checco (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the standard required by WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. BD2412 T 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to European Federation as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffer theory[edit]

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

The article does not really focus on "Buffer theory" and only mentions it once. It would probably be best if this were merged or redirected to another article. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shadow311 (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant. I could find plenty of sources discussing the buffer theory here and here. It is important to note that since there is another buffer theory in the fields of biology and chemistry, I had to include the keyword "migration" which weeds out most of the irrelevant sources. More could be found with different search terms. I can't also think of an article for this to redirect/merge into. The most relevant option would be a topic such as human migration or international migration, which are very general, so a main article on this topic is warranted in my current opinion. Aintabli (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroLeague broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 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!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago

That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [7] [8] [9], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country-specific[edit]

Albania[edit]

Others[edit]

Andorra[edit]

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion[edit]

Artur Khachatryan[edit]

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

Boxer whose only reference is a database entry. There is a draft for a diplomat, Draft: Artur Khachatryan, which will otherwise require disambiguation. The need for disambiguation is not a reason to delete, but the lack of sports notability is Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Armenia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more content at the Russian and Polish wikis that should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above comment. I'd lean to a procedural keep if those sources help demonstrate WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. The AIBA database entry shows he had 4 wins and 5 losses in his short career. His bronze medal at the European championships qualified him for the 2011 world championships where he lost his first fight (in the round of 64). I saw no significant independent coverage of him and no indication of meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Muradyan (ballet dancer)[edit]

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Ruben Muradyan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- appears well sourced/ meets WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate on how it's well sourced? Can you read Armenian? Or are you just saying this should be kept based on a cursory glance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They've won awards before such as the Honored Artist of Armenia, which can constitute under WP:ANYBIO. Noorullah (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that Honored Artist of Armenia qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor? If it truly were one then presumably its article would be more than a tiny stub. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is awarded by the president of Armenia. One nation bestowing significance through an award seems to fit the definition for WP:ANYBIO in my eyes. [10] It can also be something seen as of "historic" value now being a historic award, as it seems Armenia possibly does not give out these awards anymore? [11] @Pppery Noorullah (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austria[edit]

Georg Weissacher[edit]

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

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, Austria, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — reeks of self-promotion; prod declined, like on Renzo Vitale, by a single-purpose sockpuppet, hopefully only delaying the inevitable deletion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO tional article. DrowssapSMM 02:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Agree 100% with what's already been stated MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 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 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Azerbaijan[edit]

Sabir Alasgarov[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP, No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The article says that he was a radio announcer. The on-line source had only a brief listing of him. Was not able to review the other 2 sources; they are off line Azerbaijani sources. (one appeared to be on line but that was just a link to a Wikipedia article about the source in general.) but content is indicative of them not being GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (country). Skynxnex (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunzala Suleymanova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this interview, where she claims to have retired at age 23 or 24. JTtheOG (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Azerbaijan. JTtheOG (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As nominated by JTtheOG. Chekidalum (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium[edit]

List of Belgian Pro League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Belgium. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the premise of the AfD. Also, what a weird list! Hardly any core and almost everything out of scope. Also by SPINOFF/SPINOUT (information governance) logic, this doesn't fly. gidonb (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belg der Belgen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No refs on the page for many years. Appears to be a newspaper poll (rather than similar pages on Belgian TV shows) with little to suggest that notability has been shown to the inclusion standards JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Belgium. JMWt (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to the 2011 AfD, I would say that the fact no sources have been added between then and now suggests that there aren't any to find. Hence not notable. JMWt (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major competition of Het Nieuwsblad, the second newspaper of Belgium in readership, falling just short of Het Laatste Nieuws. Nomination is focused on references in the article, unjustifiably circumventing the golden WP:NEXIST rule. gidonb (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following are articles entirely on the competition.[12] [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Important to add that the interest is continuous and the results of the Belg der Belgen are often referenced since. gidonb (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners[edit]

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Bulgaria[edit]

Varna University of Management[edit]

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

Organization doesn't meet notability requirements. Moritoriko (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bulgaria. Moritoriko (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rumen Shankulov[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines set down in WP:SPORTCRIT Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, submitted by accident this before I was finished writing the reasons. There are no sources outside of trivial stat listings, which are not considered a contribution to notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Going by the player's career, I could see some notability. They had a good season in the Bulgarian first tier with Cherno More Varna, two good seasons abroad with Israeli second-tier club Hapoel Rishon LeZion and three in Cyprus with second-tier side Omonia Aradippou. A web search, however, did find anything close to WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps we'd need to search using a different spelling of their name, for example in Hebrew? Robby.is.on (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavcho Boychev[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORT, the existence of stat pages is not enough to prove notability. There are no other sources referenced, and nothing shows up in a search for news articles or other sourceable media. This article clearly doesn't meet the notability requirements. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems like he went on to have a political career. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stoyan Todorov[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability standards in WP:NSPORT. In addition, no non-trivial sources are provided, and I could not find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvetana Mancheva[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

CCG Profiles (via WP:PROD on 7 September 2023)

Croatia[edit]

Hiljson Mandela[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. The award "Cesarica" is not at all notable to value the importance of the subject. Upon WP:BEFORE, I could find 3 articles about him, which doesn't show notability. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Croatia. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to find widespread Croatian mainstream media coverage of this person - HRT had them on one of their music shows in 2021[23], RTL interviewed him in 2022[24] and later hired him for their 'Masked Singer' show in 2023[25], and Nova TV covered his interview in 2023[26]. There's a nationwide renown and it's a topic that might conceivably interest a few average English readers. Ultimately, if we kept Barbara Radulović back in the day, we might as well keep this. --Joy (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely strongly disagree. I second everything Joy mentioned! He is one of the most successful young Croatian musicians/rappers. With 2 Porin nominations[27][28], coverage by the 3 biggest Croatian TV channels (including interviews and participating as one of the celebrity contestants in Masked Singer) + millions of YouTube views and a lot more (I get that you couldn't find it tho, but there's def a lot of sources), I would say he is undoubtedly notable. I'm willing to expand the article soon. CroatiaElects (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Czech Republic[edit]

Silesia national football team[edit]

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

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.

The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.

Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are football teams that cover non-sovereign territories, such as the most notable cases of Catalonia and the Basque Country, as well as some CONIFA members such as Occitania and County of Nice. If there are sources that cover the team, there are no problems, as Silesia is competing in the UEFA Regions' Cup. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage, team doesn't appear to play regularly (5/6 matches in 90 years???), no evidence of notability. If it is kept, it should be renamed to Silesia official football team or Silesia representative football team, as it is NOT a national team like Poland national football team etc. Giant Snowman 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Why is a regional team titled as national? Should be titled Silesia regional football team. Next whats with the Notable players section? That should be removed. Seems to have been abused? No history section? Must be something surely for the regional team. Certainly needs sorting out. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For renaming, WP:RM should be used, not AfD. Glancing at pl wiki, just removing 'national' should work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech First League broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, not a single source. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Czech Republic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Šulc[edit]

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

I apologize if this may not be a good nomination because I do not follow Czech football league, but am doing so as what the tag states. Despite the corresponding CZ Wikipedia article being longer, from what I can read, the secondary sources listed there only contain brief mentions on Pavel Šulc himself; nothing in-depth to pass WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unquestionable notability. The player had a breakout season this year, and is covered week after week after week (examples from one news outlet). Who has time to sift through it all? I started making some additions as to how the player had made his mark. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currently the top scorer of the 2023–24 Czech First League season, member of Czech Republic national football team. This nomination is a bad joke. FromCzech (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Apparently mistaken appointment. Svartner (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could certainly be improved, but the player is clearly notable now, [29], [30], having played for the national team, etc. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very surprising nomination. This is a clearly a notable subject. Anwegmann (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, obviously notable, awful nomination. Giant Snowman 17:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with everything that has been written above apart from the nominator's statement. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Others[edit]

Denmark[edit]

Daniel Rosenfeldt[edit]

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

Hi; this is my first time both using Twinkle and participating in the AfD process, so try not to flame me too hard if I make a mistake here. This article has somewhat poor sourcing and I've done a check for his name to try and find anything on him but I've come up short. If anyone can find better sources for this, that would be great, but I'm unable to on my end. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and South Africa. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Switzerland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Proposed deletions[edit]

Estonia[edit]

Others[edit]

Finland[edit]

Stumble Guys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the general notability guidelines, with no critic reviews in sight and limited sourcing on the game in general. I managed to find one "review" from Pure Xbox [31], but I don't think that is enough to save this article. λ NegativeMP1 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Review from Multiplayer.it, reliable source per WP:VG/RS, though not enough to pass WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article seems pretty rushed, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I did notice the Pure Xbox review, and the Multiplayer.it review, but does not seem notable. The article needs to be made better. I suggest the article creator takes the article to draftspace, and works on it a little more, as right now, the article is not ready for mainspace. More reliable sources should help a lot. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sources from Pocket Gamer and Video Games Chronicle I found from the previous deletion discussion. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two reliable reviews from Multiplayer.it and Pure Xbox, which, along with other significant coverage articles — other than the ones already presented here, such as VGC, I've also found this Eurogamer source — I think it is enough to meet WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 15:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Looks pretty rushed to me. Recommended this page is put into the draftspace and work on this a bit more. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, This article is a bit undercooked, so let's put it back in the oven. Samoht27 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The Multiplayer.it review to be the only reliable review that provides significant coverage about the game. Many of the other sources listed here are bulletins or updates about commercial performance, such as topping the app charts, which is helpful but not something that would establish notability. The Pure Xbox article is helpful and a reliable source but not strong as a review; the fairly bland positive sentiments paired with the developer's input ("we were advised about during our hands-on session") implies that the writer was not in a position to offer any critical analysis of the game. As stated by others above, this could be made into a notable article but I'm not seeing it from the sources everyone has brought up. Draftifying is an appropriate ATD. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

World Trade Center (Helsinki) (via WP:PROD on 24 August 2023)

France[edit]

Steven James Bartlett[edit]

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

fails WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
how so? Psychastes (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont Sans Fil[edit]

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

No indication this was ever notable and completely WP:UNSOURCED but given I don't know French, decided to AfD instead of PROD out of an abundance of caution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and France. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not correct to suggest that this is completely unsourced. It has no citations but the references section has four references 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Chevallier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD many years ago, and nothing of substance seems to have changed: my WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet the GNG (just a handful of blogs, interviews, etc.), and none of the WP:NARTIST criteria appear to be met. Not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and France. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good sources that show notability. The article itself has a lot of sources, but they are basically all low quality and/or primary. Cortador (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (automobile)[edit]

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

This car/brand does not meet WP:N. I am unable to find any other sourcing, and the given source is only a listing that says "X (France) (1908-1909)." The article went unsourced for 18 years and the text has not been expanded upon since its original creation. Even given the age of this, it does not seem to have any claim to importance or historical significance since it existed for a year at most and "little is known about the marque." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, Transportation, and France. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page for X-branded cars The three hatnotes at the very least justify that use and we can retain this make as part of it. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Wallis and Futuna[edit]

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

No citations, all the blue links are redirects or links to cities/towns on the islands. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, Lists, France, and Islands. Skynxnex (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just WP:BOLD redirect it to Football in Wallis and Futuna. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Or redirect to Football in Wallis and Futuna. Svartner (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as collection of random information, and also purge the template "List of association football clubs in Oceania". Geschichte (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in Wallis and Futuna as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Figa[edit]

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

I could find references to this place as a villa estate, not clear if fit meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. I did not find evidence of notable archaeology. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to a site by this name in Corsica, and am curious where it came from originally. @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: your initial edit summary suggests that you might have been working from a list or database? – Joe (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Co and Fr articles don't list any sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mariette[edit]

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

Only 2 articles link to this. Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Sources confirm he's been a CEO but lacking WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, France, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple Proquest search for ""Bernard Mariette" yields a lot of international results over the last two decades. Was there a WP:BEFORE? Nfitz (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Parenti[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I could find was this from Treize Mondial, which is only a couple of sentences. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pro footballer who played in the Super League, sourced.Fleets (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Playes for Catalans and there should be more written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Brochon[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible I missed something, as Google had a good amount of hits, but really all that came up were interviews (1, 2) and post-match quotes (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional footballer who made his Super League debut in 2018, and has made dozens of appearances for another professional club in France.Fleets (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fleets, this !vote rationale is invalid, as participation-based athlete criteria were deprecated 2 years ago and the existing requirement that athletes meet GNG was strengthened to require at least one SIGCOV IRS source be cited in the article from the start. JoelleJay (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per JT, news items would be the very least to qualify as RSs. Tony (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is routine or primary/nonindependent in addition to being trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided: Played for Catalans and Toulouse and there should be more written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Jobe[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - professional footballer who played at the elite level, multiple sources to prove that fact.Fleets (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV, which is required to be cited in the article for all sportspeople. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided (leaning keep/move to draft): Young Catalans player and will likely have more coverage later in his career. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that there is not sufficient coverage? JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, and Visual arts. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 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) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284)[edit]

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

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastien Scimone[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found plenty of trivial mentions, both in English (The Yorkshire Post, Sky Sports, Warrington Guardian) and French (Le Petit Journal, L'Indépendant, La Dépêche), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - French international rugby league footballer who has played as a professional in the Super League for the Catalans Dragons on a number of occasions. Additionally as per the cited sources has played as a professional for Toulouse Olympique and at international level for France B, as well as the full national side.Fleets (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any WP:SIGCOV? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to draft: Young Catalans player, will likely have more written about him in the future. Mn1548 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in France[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and France. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Shankargb (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: Note that "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rational. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 15 April 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!} 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice d'Hirson[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltb d l (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. ltb d l (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know "Who was she?" "Was she fact or fiction?". PamD 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. "The Accursed Kings" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more irrelevant comment. The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson. This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the redirect. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French words of English origin[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to move it to Wiktionary instead? Obviously these articles have value, so I think we should retain them, but in the other wiki. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies to have an opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mae yr erthygl hon yn cynnwys llawer o eiriau sydd yn debyg iawn i eiriau Cymraeg (sydd hefyd yn iaith Geltaidd) sydd ddim yn dod o eiriau Lladin na Saesneg. Felly rydw i yn sicr ei fod yn adnodd pwysig iawn i'w chadw fel cofnod o eiriau Ffrangeg sydd yn dod o hen iaith Gaul, felly dylai gael ei chadw er mwyn ei phwysicrwydd. Nid yn unig oherwydd diwylliant Ffrangeg, ond y ddiwylliant Geltaidd sydd yn gorchuddio llawer o Orllewin Ewrop, yn cynnwys Sbaen, Y Wlad Belg, Y Swisdir, Gogledd Yr Eidal, a Gorllewin a De'r Almaen. Wrth ddileu'r dudalen hon, rydym yn dileu darn pwysig o'n hanes a'n diwylliant.

This article contains many words that are very similar to Welsh words (which is also a Celtic language) which do not come from Latin or English. Therefore I am certain it is a very important resource to be kept as a record of French and Celtic words that come from the old language of Gaul, so should be kept because of its importance. Not only for its importance in French heritage, but also for Celtic heritage which spans most of Western Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, the North of Italy, and the West and South of Germany. Gareth ap Emyr (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, it's Euro-centric. The Academie Francaise isn't representative of French in Quebec, the Office de la Langue Francaise sets suggestions for Quebec French, which is mostly what we use here in Canada. This would need a rewrite for a more global view and most of this is unsourced. There's something here, but I'm not sure even a draft would fix this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A selfie is égoportrait [32], literally an ego-portrait. I suppose we could draft it, but this would be a project. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the opening context and various ancillary information are not adequately covered by the relevant Wiktionary categories. It is desirable to expand these articles into something like Influence of French on English which is an encyclopedic discussion of the topic and not just a list, but these lists are better than nothing and better than a link to a Wiktionary category. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest I'd just delete the lot of them, these seem too niche to be of interest here, without some further scholarly discussion around these words, which seem to be missing from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per @Eluchil404:'s recommendation of expanding the article to be similar to Influence of French on English. It has problems with the way it's currently written, but it isn't unrecoverable. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George John Seaton[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned, to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base.

Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts.

I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the only !voter, I am also happy with draftification.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK? JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university.

We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible.

From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them.

As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-!vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to !vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work.

P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources. But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this, for instance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live.

Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc.

The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator (User:Velella), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer.

I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was notable even before the new sources were added. Desertarun (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think notability is established by improvements, and I don't see how the purely autobiographical works could themselves be notable if their subject is not. BD2412 T 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Recent sentiment has been pointing towards keeping this article, but with some questions still being discussed regarding notability/sourcing etc. An extra 7 days can't hurt to shore up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Roger Adam (via WP:PROD on 14 September 2023)

Georgia[edit]

Nino Kochlamazashvili[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up are trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Alasgarov[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP, No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The article says that he was a radio announcer. The on-line source had only a brief listing of him. Was not able to review the other 2 sources; they are off line Azerbaijani sources. (one appeared to be on line but that was just a link to a Wikipedia article about the source in general.) but content is indicative of them not being GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (country). Skynxnex (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Georgia (country), and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 April 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 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion[edit]

Germany[edit]

Steven James Bartlett[edit]

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

fails WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
how so? Psychastes (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia national football team[edit]

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

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.

The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.

Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are football teams that cover non-sovereign territories, such as the most notable cases of Catalonia and the Basque Country, as well as some CONIFA members such as Occitania and County of Nice. If there are sources that cover the team, there are no problems, as Silesia is competing in the UEFA Regions' Cup. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage, team doesn't appear to play regularly (5/6 matches in 90 years???), no evidence of notability. If it is kept, it should be renamed to Silesia official football team or Silesia representative football team, as it is NOT a national team like Poland national football team etc. Giant Snowman 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Why is a regional team titled as national? Should be titled Silesia regional football team. Next whats with the Notable players section? That should be removed. Seems to have been abused? No history section? Must be something surely for the regional team. Certainly needs sorting out. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For renaming, WP:RM should be used, not AfD. Glancing at pl wiki, just removing 'national' should work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bundesliga broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Marques (architect)[edit]

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

No independent sources given that show notability. Of the links provided one is to his staff biography and the other doesn't mention him at all. All I found were items that show he exists but don't show notability. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed the name of the articles author, Brunomarkes. A variant of the subjects name. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not eligible for speedy deletion due to the article probably being written by the same guy, serving as a promotion, and not going through AfC but instead being created by a page move? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping an editor from moving a draft to main space. I didn't feel that any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applied. So easier to go with AfD and then if it is re-posted it can be G4. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, Germany, Portugal, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Self-written bio, reads like self-promotion. No details of individual accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting as previous nomination did not attract any comment and soft deletion was not applicable. Non-notable band that only lasted one year; no sources found in English or German. Sources in Japanese linked on the page do not show WP:SIGCOV. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Japan, Germany, and United Kingdom. Broc (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dyras[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, nothing pops up in a WP:BEFORE in English and German. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Germany, and Poland. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Dyras website exists and has a link to a Dyras-branded catalogue from a company named Quad Star. I can't find any evidence of notability, though. The company was also known as The Global Electric Factory, but I can't find much related to that name. I can't reach http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ , but here is an archive of the site from 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210121140018/http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RooR[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage on the internet, nearly unsourced advertisement. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A not-notable bong maker in Germany. The article was created 15 years ago, and only has four sentences. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Haupt[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Technically meets the requirements at WP:NTENNIS through his wildcard in a local tournament but has no accomplishments as a tennis player that indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it again Hildreth gazzard (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284)[edit]

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

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Germany[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 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!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No evidence that these lists are encyclopedic, they've never been discussed as a group in RS. BrigadierG (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Greece[edit]

Others[edit]

Hungary[edit]

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Not a single source in any shape or form. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Hungary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon[edit]

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

As per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for.~~~ Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede 66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.

The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [33], should be at basic notability. Discussed here [34] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
"HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."

It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.

The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 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) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Iceland[edit]

Ólafsfjarðarvöllur[edit]

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

Likely hoax. Only source is permanent dead link. "Capacity of 2100" is more than twice the town's population. Claims to be the home field of Knattspyrnufélag Fjarðabyggðar, which was in a completely different part of Iceland. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iceland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references. For the capacity, https://www.nordicstadiums.com/olafsfjardarvollur/ says total capacity of 2,100 but only 150 seats, which is consistent with the photos in the references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I normally suggest redirecting non-notable stadiums, but this is not mentioned at either the club (Knattspyrnufélag Fjarðabyggðar) or the locality (Ólafsfjörður). Giant Snowman 20:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to lack notability in full. Anwegmann (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax. Fjallabyggð and Fjarðabyggð are two separate teams, and someone picked the wrong one hence the confusion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Ireland[edit]

James A. O'Flaherty[edit]

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

Biography of subject that doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:MUSICBIO or other criteria. (Article was created, seemingly, by a family member. And relies entirely on sources written by family members. Was speedy deleted in 2007. Was restored, after request from creator, shortly afterwards - on the basis that notability might be established by "news reports" and having a music retreat "named for him". However, the only news report mentioned (which doesn't appear to be verifiable) seems to be about the music retreat. Rather than the subject. And while it is a credit to the man/family/community that the event was so-named, it doesn't establish notability. Even if the event was notable (and I would question whether it is), notability isn't transferrable.) My own WP:BEFORE has returned nothing to indicate that NBIO or SIGCOV are met. WP:COI and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are also relevant. Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG all sources seem to be related to the subject. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator nailed the problems with the article. It is possible that the Irish music retreat was named after this gentleman, but the retreat itself is not very notable and the gentleman's music career appeared to be semi-pro at best. This article is clearly an attempted memorial that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, where notability is key. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rabbitt[edit]

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

Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. In terms of NPOL, the role of chair (mayor) of Galway County Council isn't an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". In terms of SIGCOV, the only sources in the article are either primary or the very definition of trivial passing mentions. In my own WP:BEFORE a Google search (which which returns barely 50 results) and a news search (which returns only opinion pieces and passing mentions) does not amount to SIGCOV. Certainly any more than we would expect for any other candidate for a local office. As we (quite correctly) do not have articles for Mayor of Galway County Council or Cathaoirleach of Galway County Council, I do not see how a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Or draftification or other forms of ATD. Hence the only action I can support is deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:NPOL. Spleodrach (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the provision of significant substance about their work in the role and significant reliable sourcing to support it — but this is just "mayor who existed", supported by a minimal smattering of primary and unreliable sourcing with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy referencing shown at all, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gill (priest)[edit]

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

There appears to be insufficient notability for this priest. Chumpih ^t 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Or, failing that, redirect to Archdeacon of Cloyne. As with other similar articles by the creator contributor, there is nothing to indicate that the subject has any notability independent of the role/job that they held. The sources in the article (including this directory style entry alongside HUNDREDS (thousands?) of other clerical people) do not constitute material biographical coverage. Nor can I find any. The sources barely support (as the creator, frankly, should have done) a sentence or two about the subject WP:WITHIN the article on the role that they held. Other than for the "completionist" reasons that seems to have driven most of the creator's submissions, there is nothing to support or justify a short sub-stub/stand-alone biographical entry. Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to validate notability of this individual. Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not inherently notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Leicester and Leinster[edit]

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

There is no real rivalry between these two sides, with no WP:GNG coverage of the rivalry, just a collection of stats with violates WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST. Similar discussions such as this and this have shown a clear consensus on these sorts of articles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby union, Ireland, and England. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republican Movement[edit]

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

Was never notable in the first place, although it had the potential to be at the start. There was a brief flurry of news in relation to a statement they put out, but no sources that covered the organisation in any significant depth. No publicity since that statement at all. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Terrorism, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the references already present in the article establish notability. Even if the group is no longer active, "once notable, always notable." I seem to remember someone saying that some of the people in the handout photo that appears in several of the references weren't holding their weapons correctly, implying that this was never a serious group. I can't confirm this, though. Nonetheless, reliable sources have covered this group, which means it's notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was never notable, although it had the potential to be if it had actually done anything. But other than releasing a statement, they've done nothing. Kathleen's bike (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland). (And remove from Template:IRAs.) Per nom, the (current) topic/subject of the title (the org which asserted this name) is not notable. And never was. The only coverage suggests that a group(?), giving itself this name, released a statement (maybe two), back in 2019/2020. And that, seemingly, is all. The coverage, of those statements, doesn't meet WP:SIRS. In which the "S" ("S"ignificant) requires "significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". The coverage does NOT cover the subject org in any depth. At all. (For all we know the "group" could have 2 members. If even that.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The comment above mine makes a great point; once notable, always notable. Even if the group isn't as active as it used to be, there's nothing wrong with keeping it around as it provides insight into the contemporary Dissident movement.

Castroonthemoon (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except, as repeatedly pointed out, it was never notable in the first place. A brief flurry of news about a single statement does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. See also guidance at WP:ORGDEPTH, there has to be coverage that "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". Kathleen's bike (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Republican movement (Ireland) - Per the argument put forward by Guliolopez. I agree with Guliolopez and Kathleen's bike that sources (or rather lack of) indicate that this organisation did not ever materialise in reality. While it's supposed founding was touted, it was never actually active. One press release is not enough to justify an article. CeltBrowne (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Óglaigh na hÉireann (Real IRA splinter group), where it is already mentioned. I agree that the topic is not standalone notable, but it's better discussed at the article where it splintered from, rather than just redirected to the main article on the republican movement. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Peacock[edit]

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

No indication that the titular subject (the diarist/author) or the actual subject (the diary) meet any applicable criteria. In terms of the writer (the author of the diary), writing a personal diary (even in the 18th century) doesn't make one a notable author (WP:AUTHOR). In terms of the book (based on the diary), there is no indication that WP:NBOOK is met. (It appears to be like any other history work based on collated primary sources). WP:GNG is also not met. Frankly, and with every respect, this is another in a long-line of contributions from a Wikipedia editor who should have considered WP:WITHIN. (And perhaps used this source within and in support of other articles. Rather than writing individual articles on every historical person/name they encountered.) I cannot conceive of any appropriate WP:ATDs (redirect/draftify/etc). And so am left with AfD... Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Discussed here [35] and here [36], offering discussion around the time he lived in and the social "things" he kept record of, which really need to be incorporated here so we understand why this person is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ehmm. Is being mentioned, somewhat in passing, in two books (in addition to his own diary) significant coverage? To the extent that WP:NBASIC is met? In "Marriage in Ireland, 1660–1925" (2020), Luddy and O'Dowd (pages 115, 229 and 231) simply use Peacock (alongside at least a half-dozen other diarists and contemporaries) as an example of the [pervasive/male] opinion that the "purpose in securing a wife was to have someone look after the house and children". I do not have access to "A New Anatomy of Ireland: The Irish Protestants, 1649-1770" (2004), but Barnard doesn't appear to deal with Peacock as a topic directly or in particular detail. I'm clearly missing something, but WP:NBASIC expects that primary sources (like the subject's own diary) don't contribute to notability. At all. And any secondary sources would need to be substantial and/or numerous. And the few mentions in those two works don't seem to be either.... Guliolopez (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More for the social context in which he was alive, they fit him into the social history of the time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And this [37] and this [38], second one is probably longer. We should at least have BASIC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The first of those is the same Barnard work ("A New Anatomy of Ireland"; 2004) that you (and I) have already mentioned. It's not additional/extra coverage. The second of those is also Barnard (in "The Irish Book in English"; 2006; edited by Gillespie & Hadfield). Essentially the same coverage. Condensed into a paragraph or so. We're still at 2 (perhaps 2 and a half) relatively short mentions in works which are (quite substantially) about something else. As per my nom, if Peacock is relevant only in the context of the "social history of the time", then that's how he should be covered. WP:WITHIN the relevant section of History of County Limerick or Agriculture in Ireland or Marriage in Ireland or similar. JUST as those works do. Not as a biographical subject/topic in own right... Guliolopez (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Ireland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [39], [40], and [41] which may be helpful in determining notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to hear a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Article_alerts#RfD

Italy[edit]

List of Serie A broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. No context to assert notability. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Italy. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Wong[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable baseball career with no statistics, and no coverage outside playing city (Turin). 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 19:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, Italy, and Cuba. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the obituaries were published by several news outlets: TorinoToday, Repubblica, RaiNews, La Stampa, Corriere. It seems enough to justify GNG, but I found very little pre-death coverage. Broc (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources above basically parrot each other in eulogizing him and mentioning that a relative plays for the Texas Rangers. There's nothing about Wong's career while he never played in a top-flight league. It's not enough to even establish WP:SPORTCRIT. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

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

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gransito Movie Awards 2008[edit]

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

Perpetually unreferenced article lacks coverage, fails WP:GNG. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it lacks the same coverage:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Οἶδα (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Internet, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the award itself is not notable, neither would a listing of awardees per year. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Why? I Ask it's the award which is obscure and not notable (eg. no idea if it still exists, and if not when it was cancelled). Cavarrone 06:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website was last up in 2009[42], after which it was seemingly usurped. It appears to have been the only source (as an external link)[43], likely indicating self-promotion. No reliable, independent sources can be found on the topic, and thus it should not have a separate article (which was deleted 2017). These sub-articles should have gone with it. Οἶδα (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Vitale[edit]

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

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the subject has had an ordinary career, with no indication of encyclopedic notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Chianucci[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as his career hasn't really kicked on. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paolo Tasca (professor)[edit]

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

Previously deleted and salted as Paolo Tasca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Computing, Italy, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete ~~Delete~~ -- I don't have access to the deleted versions of the article, but since it has been deleted and salted, the level of improvement to notability needs to be higher than typical to keep, and I don't see a WP:PROF pass here that would warrant it. But UCL is a significant university, so I don't want to be too hasty -- salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to weak delete by Mikejisuzu's arguments, but nothing warrants speedy keep by a long shot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that he's actually only an associate professor, not a full professor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -- Paolo Tasca is much more notable now in 2024, with multiple publications and third-party media references. Right now Tasca has several citations in triple digits. I'd argue that notability itself has increased significantly since the last deletion.

Given the higher requirement for notability, Tasca should have at least one well-cited multiple author work and others in double digits. From a quick look at Google Scholar, he has 6 works in triple-digit citations and more than 20 with double-digit citations. It looks like he has also grown in notability from a media perspective at least regards to reliable sources such as Euronews, and Project Syndicate. [44] As a result, Tasca clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability criteria. Mikejisuzu (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever gave you the idea that that is enough citations in the very highly-cited field of computer science? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start the title is a lie, as he's an associate professor, not a professor. Why do people involved with blockchain always seem to lie like this? Exaggeration is a sign of immaturity, not strength. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on notability, encyclopedic relevance, academic publications, positions, and so on - In response to Phil's and Necrothesp's comments: Paolo Tasca's work is multidisciplinary, and he also does a lot of work in economics. Please check Google Scholar for his many dozens of academic publications. This is certainly enough to establish basic notability. (Google Scholar)

He also has an ORCID profile where dozens of published works are listed. (ORCID)

And if that's not enough, there's an official UCL profile as well with additional information. (UCL page) UCL is one of the top universities in the UK and Europe, equivalent to an Ivy League-type institution. We can't just delete UCL, or Yale, professors with many dozens of publications unless we can demonstrate solid reasons for why they absolutely don't fit into the scope of this online encyclopedia. This is definitely a serious academic, not some self-promoting "motivational speaker" or "life coach."

There are plenty of academics out there who used to be non-notable, but have since become much more notable due to their recent extensive publications, research, and presentations. Tasca would certainly be one of them. Simply having a previous deletion or two should not prevent the subject from being permanently barred from eventually having a Wikipedia article even after the subject has eventually attained sufficient notability. I understand that the nominator thinks that Tasca had been deleted before and hence would like to reconsider whether or not the article should remain deleted. Nevertheless, by now, I strongly believe that his notability and encyclopedic relevance has greatly increased, and he is certainly worth including on Wikipedia now. This article is now certainly useful and relevant for encyclopedia readers, which is what Wikipedia is meant for.

I would also really like to see more experienced users vote on this issue, particularly @Cunard: and others.

As for Tasca being an "associate professor"? I'm not sure who created the page and why they decided on "(professor)", but it certainly seems fair enough to me. The article creator didn't try to put "(full professor)." A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. Thus, "(professor)" is a fair an accurate description, and I think it's unfair to call out the article creator for inaccurately describing the subject and picking on whether Tasca is a full or associate professor.

I hope that I have laid out a strong case for why Paolo Tasca should be a strong keep and speedy keep. Mikejisuzu (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Associate and assistant professors are types of non-professor, not of professor. "Full professor" is an American term, but the subject has no connection with America. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. No they're not. In the UK, these people used to be (and in many universities are still) called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers, not professors. An associate or assistant professor who called themselves or insisted on being addressed as "professor" would still be looked on askance, because they have no right to that title. The use of "professor" as a synonym for "academic" is an Americanism, pure and simple. Elsewhere, the unqualified "professor" only refers to someone who holds a chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rox De Luca[edit]

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

Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute significant critical attention, nor is the subject's work represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.roxdeluca.com/images/Gleaning_for_plastics_defying_wastefulness_by_Paul_Allatson_2020_.pdf		This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH).	See WP:SELFPUBLISH.	✘ No
https://www.roxdeluca.com/index.php/artist-cv-curriculum-de-arte	This is the artist's CV.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://theculturetrip.com/pacific/australia/articles/sea-of-plastic-an-artists-quest-to-address-ocean-pollution			This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist.	✔ Yes
https://searchthecollection.nga.gov.au/object?keyword=anna%20de%20luca&searchIn=artistOrCulture&searchIn=title&searchIn=medium&uniqueId=127158			Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother.	✘ No
https://gunyah.blogspot.com/search?q=rox+de+luca	This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/features/artists-giving-materials-a-new-life-2512531/			~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work.	~ Partial
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193.			Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book.	✔ Yes
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24.			Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview.	✔ Yes
https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/bitstream/10453/45398/2/The%20Transcultural%20Edge.pdf			A paragraph mention on the subject and their work.	✔ Yes
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26.			Offline source, accepting in good faith.	✔ Yes
https://www.gq.com.au/style/trends/the-style-download-15324/image-gallery/a1114634ed7db996d49f80ed40e73536			Very short mention of the subject and one of their works.	✔ Yes
https://www.projectvortex.org/	This is a project with which the artist is associated.		Name doesn't even feature in the source.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/reviews/review-deakin-university-contemporary-small-sculpture-award-2018-256473-2360787/			Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention.	✘ No
https://www.unsw.edu.au/news/2017/07/the-inaugural-ravenswood-australian-womens-art-prize--finalists			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.artshub.com.au/news/sponsored-content/turning-waste-into-art-is-a-community-affair-261135-2368551/			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ No
https://www.woollahragallery.com.au/Artists/Artist-in-Residence/Rox-de-Luca	This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject.		See WP:ABOUTSELF.	✘ No
https://www.deakin.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/2192259/deakin_university_art_collection_artists.pdf			Just the subject's name is mentioned.	✘ 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}}.

Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Lionetta[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced article, nothing of notability in the text and no coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a quick search on La Stampa's historical archive (which I highly recommend) and it returned a few hits: 1, an interview dated July 1982, on the release of their second album; 2, a short profile dated November 1982; 3, a concert profile dated June 1999 (which makes me wonder why the article says they broke up in 1987). There's also a profile on the website of Buccheri's council website (it looks dated, but it is the council website!). To me, these results suggest there are likely sufficient offline/historical sources to sustain an article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the Buccheri profile link: it's here! On reflection, this seems to be part of an advertisement for a 2004 concert, so I don't think it can contribute to establishing notability as a non-independent source, assuming the council had any involvement in the concert. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google Books seems to return some hits/mentions in the context of Italian folk revival music; this seems indicative of a longer profile as a book chapter. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those sources do not adequately support notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources newspaper and book sources identified above by Ignatius that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola[edit]

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

Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:

Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building. I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Yup. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:

WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability (my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING.

I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING: Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Montasola, until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[45] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub. The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy. I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article. Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population. The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Hexperos (via WP:PROD on 10 September 2023)
Benedicaria (via WP:PROD on 7 September 2023)

Latvia[edit]

Others[edit]

Lithuania[edit]

Indrė Venskevičiūtė[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giedrė Labuckienė[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a number of wikis, including the Polish and French versions which have both more content and 14 and 15 sources, respectively. A 15-year-player for the Lithuanian national team, have any of the sources been checked? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally edited it and Im gonna take a part of Polish Wikipedia

ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked through them but a brief look of Lithuanian sources gives numerous hits, did the BEFORE focus on those or just a general Google search? Alvaldi (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs work, the subject seems to be notable basketball player. [46][47][48] Alvaldi (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article definitely needs work but the subject seems to meet WP:GNG. Aside from the ones provided by Alvaldi, I found [49], [50], [51], [52]JTtheOG (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There have been substantial additions to the article since its nomination. A source review would be helpful as well as the nominator's opinion on the article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per rationale by JTtheOG. Chekidalum (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is evidently a notable player. Niafied (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Moldova[edit]

Liuba Dragomir[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers as I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect Traumnovelle (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers due to subject's lack of WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Montenegro[edit]

Others[edit]

Netherlands[edit]

(This discussion is) Off the Record[edit]

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.

The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justi yaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out with Jurriaan Kamp[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Environment, and Netherlands. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The network it's on, EarthX, doesn't have an article; it does have some distribution on major pay-TV systems in the US, but like other channels like AWE, it's basically a dumping ground for vanity project environmental documentaries even Tubi can't bother to deal with like this show. The WP:SPAness doesn't help here, either. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably going to end up agreeing with the Delete vote, although I'm still looking to see if there's more sources, but I feel like I have to point out that the fact that the network it's on (EarthX) doesn't have an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The network actually looks like it could easily have an article, as there's a lot of secondary sources reporting on it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:53, 12 April 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 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 April 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!} 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

North Macedonia[edit]

University of Information Science and Technology "St. Paul The Apostle"[edit]

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

The article states they have 375 students, which is not a university. Many of the claims look too much, and none are verified. From their own web page the number of faculty is very small. Making a Beowulf cluster is not notable. More significant coverage is needed, this fails almost everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment State universities and colleges tend to be notable, although this is a comparatively minor vocational one. It appears reasonably likely that WP:SOURCESEXIST, but searching in Cyrillic is difficult for many of us. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Universities are normally notable, although even by North Macedonian standards this one appears to be quite small (the other public universities in North Macedonia for which we have articles each have more than 10 times as many students as this one). Yes, searching in Macedonian is difficult for us here, but the article in the Macedonian Wikipedia isn't that much better. At worst, though, redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia rather than deleting this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally kept universities founded by statute. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what policy? The Banner talk 18:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Seconding the policy question. Also, as I stated in the original nomination, I could not verify the claims -- maybe someone else can. For instance, I am doubtful about all the claimed collaborations with universities many times their size, the 14 BA & MA degrees, the ranking. I could not verify any of these. It is easy to write on a web page, but normally we look for verifiability, WP:N. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Based on WP:CONSENSUS over many AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I am asking for a policy. Not for a circular reasoning. The Banner talk 23:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that policy would be WP:CONSENSUS! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am still asking for a policy that says specifically that we are keeping "universities founded by statute". WP:CONSENSUS does not state that. And saying that we keep universities because we kept universities in the past because we kept universities in the past etc. is a circular reasoning. Not based on any policy. The Banner talk 17:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the top level polytechnic of a nation that was founded by the national government is a notable act in itself. There are numerous US institutions with fewer undergraduates (Caltech) or even 1/10th of the total number of students (Deep Springs College) that are notable, so the size of the institution isn't a determining factor; the significance of the institution to a nation's identity is a glimpse at the importance to a people. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two points:

Please check your numbers, you are way off. Caltech has close to 3 times (1023) the number of undergrads per year, to compare to the total number of 357 for both BS & MS, plus Caltech admitted 1440 grads. https://registrar.caltech.edu/records/enrollment-statistics

You ignored the key point -- essentially nothing on this Wikipedia page is verifiable. The Deep Springs College page has 37 sources, plus stacks of other material that verifies notability.

I politely request that you demonstrate their notability if you want to defend them. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If we are to evaluate only based on the inserted references, then this fails every notability guideline, but if sources in foreign (local) language exist, and are promptly introduced, then things could change. I feel it's necessary that someone with proficiency in the local language performs some searches and shares the results. X (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Ldm1954 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of universities in North Macedonia until proper sourcing can be identified. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources become available. I conducted some searches in Macedonian but failed to locate significant secondary source coverage. Right now we are doing no service to our readers by having an article unsupported by sources making various dubious claims. AusLondonder (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirection to List of universities in North Macedonia is an excellent alternative to deletion. I'm on the fence as far as independent notability, leaning very very slightly on the keep side, essentially per the argument of Necrothesp. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating we have kept other articles is not an argument. AusLondonder (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep. I got some help from one of our students here with language. There's an interview with the vice-rector [53], which we probably can't use for facts, but which I think contributes to notability. Substantial piece in Makedonsko Sonce on a potential reorganization [54]. There's coverage in national newspapers related to a labor disagreement [55], and in context of national university organization [56] (for example, lots of stories of the latter type). Lots of coverage in Ohrid News, for example [57][58][59][60]. I found perfoming Google site-searches for "Универзитетот за информатички науки и технологии" to be helpful. Overall, I'm seeing enough consistent coverage over time for a reasonable notability case. As other editors have been saying, this is as one would expect for one of a small number of state universities. I am not impressed with the comparison with CalTech, but I think it might be helpful to compare with e.g. the University of Maine School of Law: a small technical school that is nonetheless of regional importance and wider interest, and that is appropriate for encyclopedic coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Norway[edit]

Exercise Anorak Express[edit]

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

Not notable. No coverage in secondary sources. Entire article is copy/pasted from [61]. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Hegel Audio AS (via WP:PROD on 19 August 2023)

Poland[edit]

Silesia national football team[edit]

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

Silesia is not a country, so it cannot be this. Rename it--but to what? There's no Frisian national football team or Walloon national football team either. Plus, the article is little more than a directory and a list of matches. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Czech Republic, Germany, and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, should certainly be trimmed / improved / sourced, whole sections could go, but it seems a bit unfair to single out this team, as it is only one of a long list here, and while I realise it's not a real guide to notability, the fact that it has 9 language versions at least show there's some passing interest beyond its homeland and has some historical significance. It's pretty niche stuff, but a lot of others in that list are too and it may be more logical to start from the most obscure and work up, don't want to insult anyone's region but Seborga national football team looks an example of one with far less merit for inclusion than Silesia.

The name is a topic that's come up previously, particularly relating to the more prominent non-nations like Catalonia. Personally I would have no problem with it being something like 'representative football team' for all of these, but it's been argued that there are quite a few non-sovereign FIFA teams so the word 'national' is really just used to differentiate them from clubs and does not necessarily infer a certain status on the territory in question.

Only other thing is, do Wallonia and Frisia have any sort of combined team that plays matches? That's not meant to be a 'well do they???' question, I'm genuinely not sure, but I couldn't see one on French or Dutch wiki where one might expect to find something snuck away. If they have never had such a team, it's not really fair to compare their non-presence to articles for teams that have demonstrably played matches, even if really long ago and/or at a very low level. Crowsus (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – There are football teams that cover non-sovereign territories, such as the most notable cases of Catalonia and the Basque Country, as well as some CONIFA members such as Occitania and County of Nice. If there are sources that cover the team, there are no problems, as Silesia is competing in the UEFA Regions' Cup. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage, team doesn't appear to play regularly (5/6 matches in 90 years???), no evidence of notability. If it is kept, it should be renamed to Silesia official football team or Silesia representative football team, as it is NOT a national team like Poland national football team etc. Giant Snowman 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Why is a regional team titled as national? Should be titled Silesia regional football team. Next whats with the Notable players section? That should be removed. Seems to have been abused? No history section? Must be something surely for the regional team. Certainly needs sorting out. Govvy (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For renaming, WP:RM should be used, not AfD. Glancing at pl wiki, just removing 'national' should work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ekstraklasa broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are entirely primary, are basically news announcement and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Poland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish military aircraft[edit]

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

This list is unnecessary duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft. I don't see any good reason to such duplication, also the creator of that article was recently inform that there is consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, it seems he is trying to circumvent the consensus by creating new article/list

This additional list of aircraft seems redundant since it's already covered in the Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft articles. There doesn't appear to be a valid reason for this duplication. Moreover, the person who created the list was recently informed about the consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, so it seems like they're trying to work around that consensus by creating a new article or list. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: If the list is only duplicate to either Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft, then I would suggest to merge/redirect to one of them per WP:MERGEREASON. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics:

Military, Transportation, Lists, and Poland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this should be deleted, then be consistent and recommend the deletion of:

Because individual lists exist for each branch, and then another summary exists. The problem of the list in the other pages is that it lacks details, and people don't want additional details there. At least here, there is more clarity.

If the images are a problem, then it should be a problem with

Fabrice Ram (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, if it was really a duplicate then it may be on my next to do list. Afeterall, I do have history to remove duplicate table Air Force inventory table in the past, such as Yemeni Air Force, Gabon Air Force, Indonesian Air Force, and more. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is longer and has pictures. So against redirecting it there. Also there are over a hundred articles like this. Category:Lists_of_military_aircraft. Dream Focus 04:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focusre: This article is duplicate of Polish Air Force#Aircraft and Polish Land Forces#Aircraft and Wikipedia in general is against duplication articles. Regarding images on table, we have a consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, and intentionally ignoring the consensus may be considered as disruptive editing. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You link to a discussion had in 2015, with 4 wanting to get rid of images like this, and 1 wanting to keep it. So 5 people decided something in a two week discussion most never noticed, 9 years ago. I think a new discussion is warranted with greater participation, and not just about aircraft, but list of tanks, ships, and whatnot. Dream Focus 08:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that consensus can change per WP:CCC. However, until new consensus reached, it doesn't means we can disregard existing consensus. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wz. 89 Puma[edit]

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

Unclear why this shortlived Polish camouflage pattern would be notable, sources are primary or passing it seems. Fram (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Fashion, and Poland. Fram (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It would be nice to hear a critique of the existing sources in more detail. My BEFORE found one RS, with SIGCOV (a paragraph): http://pngs.nowogard.eu/images/Taktyka/Maciej-Dojlitko-strony--1-101.pdf (a Polish academic book on camo). I know it is just one source, but if we consider sources present, borderline notability may appear. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dyras[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, nothing pops up in a WP:BEFORE in English and German. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Germany, and Poland. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Dyras website exists and has a link to a Dyras-branded catalogue from a company named Quad Star. I can't find any evidence of notability, though. The company was also known as The Global Electric Factory, but I can't find much related to that name. I can't reach http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ , but here is an archive of the site from 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210121140018/http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)[edit]

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

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Scholar returns 2 results for "Muscovite-Ukrainian War" and 9 results for "Ukrainian-Muscovite War", of which only 1 refers to 1658. Clearly a new title is needed in this case and this seems to fall under the Ruin and Russo-Polish War articles (which are sorely lacking details for this period). Even the Ukrainian-language sources cited use "Russian-Ukrainian war" and this looks like to have been the original title on the Ukrainian Wikipedia before it was moved. In my opinion this looks like revisionist history referring to an uprising led by Ivan Vyhovsky (a pro-Polish hetman). For example this source says: "Khmel'nitskii died in 1657, and Poland and the new Cossack leader, Vygovskii, now accepted Polish lordship over Ukraine. Vygovskii joined Poland in the resumption of war with Russia in October 1658... But in Ukraine, Cossacks of the Left Bank... rebelled against Vygovskii's pro-Polish alliance... Vygovskii fled to Poland, and Trubetskoi marched to Pereiaslavl', where he persuaded the Left Bank Cossacks to accept him as hetman in October 1659" (p. 214). I do not think it is suited for a spin-off article; I would say merge instead but most the article is unsourced. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell: in 1658 Vyhovsky again recognized the Cossacks' dependence on Poland; the Union of Hadziach was signed. This resumed Polish-Russian fighting interrupted earlier by a truce; Russia invaded Ukraine seeking to subjugate Vyhovsky, having some Cossacks (including Sich) behind it.

In May, the PLC again concluded a truce with Russia, but the Sejm approved the Hadziach Union, and Vyhovsky received small reinforcements from the crown army. Thus came the Battle of Konotop, which Vyhovsky won. In August, however, a Cossack uprising broke out against Vyhovsky, who was overthrown and the new Hetman Yurko Khmelnytsky subordinated himself to Moscow, supported by a large part of the Cossacks. The war continued.

As you can see, there is no war between “Ukraine” and “Moscow”, but there is an internal rivalry between the divided Cossacks, which take place in the context of the Polish-Russian war. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that Google Scholar returns almost no results for "Russian-Ukrainian war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" referring to 1658/1659 (if we limit the years to before the current war then almost all results refer to the Russian Civil War and a hypothetical war excluding post-2014 publications referring to the current war but slipped through). Same goes for "Muscovite-Cossack war" etc. I see a few results for Ukrainian-language sources but there needs to be a deeper look to see which ones are reliable. At the moment I see very little that supports the idea of a separate war. For example there are plenty of Ukrainian-language sources that refer to a Soviet occupation of Ukraine until 1991 but this was determined to be a fringe view. In fact we had an AfD for this (and this was also a translation of an article from the Ukrainian Wikipedia). Mellk (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Salvage what is possible from the article and merge it into the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) page. Noorullah (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Justice (Poland)[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a decade, couldn't find source to meet WP:GNG. Found [62], but seems to be unrelated. Article on plwiki was deleted in 2021, see pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:01:Wolność i Sprawiedliwość (Polska). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Easily fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. As the polish version of the article was also deleted, its evident that the organization is not notable. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Skynxnex (talk) 15:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added a couple of citations, so at least the article isn't completely unreferenced now. The problem with secret underground organizations is that information about them is difficult to find (by design), but there seems to be more discussion of Freedom and Justice recent years. In fact, this journal article was published in 2021, probably after the Polish AfD discussion. There is also this 2022 article. These are brief mentions at best, but I don't have time to do a more comprehensive search right now. (The key seems to be to search for both "Wolnosc i Sprawiedliwosc" and "WiN" together.) A possible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to Cursed soldiers where this group is mentioned. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on Cielquiparle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apatia[edit]

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

No notability evident in the article per WP:BAND, mainly just states that they're straight edge and played some concerts. Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web. InDimensional (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Poland. InDimensional (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know how the nom looked for sources, but they managed to miss and ignore the source cited in the article, from Onet.pl, which meets SIGCOV and is reliable. So that's one - and it calls this band "legendary". Pl wiki lists two more sources, from a notable NGO, which calls one of its albums "cult" ([63]). The band is mentioned in academic works, including in English, ex [64] "most of the best Polish punk bands such as Apatia...". Other Polish sources: [65] (onet again), [66] (Gazeta Wyborcza - Polish main newspaper of record), [67] (Życie Warszawy) I am not going to list more sources, but plenty exist even in English. The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for terrible execution of WP:BEFORE, since finding sources does not even require speaking Polish (not that these days, with solid machine translation built into most browsers, this should be much of an excuse). PS. That said, the claim about them being mentioned in PWN I could not verify. The article needs improvement, here and on pl wiki, but this is no reason to nuke it. Sources I found here should be enough for anyone who cares to improve this article to get it to DYK level... maybe even I'll do it one day if I find the time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Piotrus that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Please also see here

Portugal[edit]

Bruno Marques (architect)[edit]

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

No independent sources given that show notability. Of the links provided one is to his staff biography and the other doesn't mention him at all. All I found were items that show he exists but don't show notability. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed the name of the articles author, Brunomarkes. A variant of the subjects name. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not eligible for speedy deletion due to the article probably being written by the same guy, serving as a promotion, and not going through AfC but instead being created by a page move? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping an editor from moving a draft to main space. I didn't feel that any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applied. So easier to go with AfD and then if it is re-posted it can be G4. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, Germany, Portugal, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Self-written bio, reads like self-promotion. No details of individual accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 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!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Romania[edit]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

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

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ștefan Buchiu[edit]

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

I don’t really see the types of references that would confirm notability per WP:PROF. Perhaps they exist (I couldn’t find any), but they aren’t here.

Out of the 18 references, 12 are from the official news agency (Basilica), newspaper (Lumina) or head office of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Two are the subject’s CVs hosted on his university’s site, while a third is on the site of the Musical Society with which he collaborated. Two are passing mentions from other theological seminaries. Finally, we have his CV reproduced in an obscure newspaper (Cuvântul Olteniei), probably sent by a press officer. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for initiating this discussion regarding the notability of Prof. Ștefan Buchiu and for your concerns about the types of references cited. It is indeed true that a portion of the references come from sources related to the Romanian Orthodox Church, such as the Basilica News Agency and Lumina newspaper. This is largely because Fr. Prof. Buchiu's contributions and activities are within the ecclesiastical and theological community. As a prominent figure in this domain, I believe coverage by these specialized sources is both expected and appropriate, reflecting his standing and influence in the field.

In response to the need for additional independent sources, I have updated the article to include references to three significant books that discuss Prof. Buchiu’s biography and contributions to Orthodox theology. These books are reputable academic publications, providing a critical and scholarly view of his work and impact. Notably, one of these books is a festschrift in his honor, published on his 70th birthday, which includes contributions from fellow academics, underscoring his notability in the theological community. Such festschrifts are recognized in academia as significant honors that reflect a scholar's impact in their field.

Moreover, the event of his 70th birthday itself, which was marked by significant academic and ecclesiastical gatherings, further supports his notability under the criteria outlined in WP:PROF. This event and the publication of the festschrift are indicative of his standing within the theological community enhancing the article's credibility and alignment with Wikipedia's notability standards for academics.

Given these points, and considering the detailed criteria under WP:PROF, Prof. Buchiu’s scholarly output and his role in advancing Orthodox theology both domestically and internationally are documented and significant. His career enriches academic and theological discourse, making the retention of this article valuable for Wikipedia's coverage of notable academic figures in theology. KoreSoteria (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for those additional sources. The entry in Păcurariu, for example, is a good indication of notability. Let’s see if anyone else wishes to add something to the discussion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not familiar with the expected academic output in this field, but 21 citations since 2008 and an h-index of 3 on GS seem very low to me. There could be other metrics involved, such as the quality of the journals or the publishing houses where those publications appeared, but I cannot evaluate those. Turgidson (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included additional authoritative references to Prof. Ștefan Buchiu's Wikipedia page to further substantiate his notability. The article now contains references from the Library of Congress Authorities and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which are highly reputable sources that affirm Prof. Buchiu's academic standing. These sources provide a strong independent confirmation of his scholarly work and are indicative of his recognition in academic libraries globally. I believe these additions significantly strengthen the case for notability per WP:PROF. KoreSoteria (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Romania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE as does any of the other articles in this category. Halfadaniel (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is not an EPG because it doesn't list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules. We should also delete all these articles: Category:Lists of sporting event broadcasters ??? What is the difference? Cetateanul Rosu (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Bianca gas field (via WP:PROD)
Brădești gas field (via WP:PROD)
Clara gas field (via WP:PROD)
Daia gas field (via WP:PROD)
Filitelnic gas field (via WP:PROD)
Frasin-Gura Humorului gas field (via WP:PROD)
Ghindăoani gas field (via WP:PROD)
Mănești-Vlădeni gas field (via WP:PROD)
Maria gas field (via WP:PROD)
Miorița gas field (via WP:PROD)
Muridava gas field (via WP:PROD)
Nadia gas field (via WP:PROD)
Noul Săsesc gas field (via WP:PROD)
Plenița gas field (via WP:PROD)
Poduri gas field (via WP:PROD)
Rodbav gas field (via WP:PROD)
Roman-Secuieni gas field (via WP:PROD)
Șamșud gas field (via WP:PROD)
Sângeorgiu de Pădure gas field (via WP:PROD)
Șaroș gas field (via WP:PROD)
Sighișoara gas field (via WP:PROD)
Șincai gas field (via WP:PROD)
South Cobălcescu gas field (via WP:PROD)
Târnăveni gas field (via WP:PROD)
Teleac gas field (via WP:PROD)
Torcești gas field (via WP:PROD)

Russia[edit]

Russian youth[edit]

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

The entire article is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. There are many instances of stating opinions as facts (WP:VOICE), e.g., "The roots of current Russian youth culture can be traced back to ancient Russia, but more readily apparent signs of modern Russian youth culture are due to the reactionary influence because of both the Soviet Union's formation and its dissolution", and riddled with weasel words, e.g., "Some observers noted what they described as a "generational struggle" among Russians". Generally, these are not the basis for an article to be deleted when the article can be fixed or tagged, but the idea of the article itself is based on collating different sources to present a personal reflection, i.e., Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pleas note that the sources cited mostly do not support claims being asserted, with the statement being more of a conjecture rather than an encyclopaedic one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Delete it. I wouldn't care. I guess that the fact that I tried to write objectively and it came out subjectively shows how poorly done that the journalism I've read that inspired me to write the same is and so on. Lunavara (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process is generally where editors debate. It is a good opportunity for you to defend your work and maybe change our minds. You can also fix the deficiencies noted by myself (an maybe other editors) and update us with a comment when you do that.

My nomination is not a unilateral decision, and I think you should care about it so you can improve your future work and learn more about policies that dictate how this place ticks. Please take it as a chance to learn, as you continue grow as editor, and also feel free to challenge it.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there was massive edit after the nom to try to fix the article (by deleting almost half of it) but I still think the article is beyond fixing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nodar Kancheli[edit]

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

No independent notability apart from two collapsed buildings. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE #3. In addition to the two buildings mentioned in the article, he contributed to the Kolomna Speed Skating Center, per this source: [68], as well as other significant projects. E.g. he designed the dome of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour: [69]. Sufficient for a referenced stub. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom, Saint Petersburg[edit]

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Russia, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep. It's relevant to the wider history of UK - Russia relations. Notable because it was forced to close. Cantab12 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Okulov[edit]

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

Non-notable Russian physicist. The article was created by its subject (Okulov99 (talk · contribs)), contains no references or sources confirming the subject's notability (expect of the publication list of the subject). It is basically a promotional page. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts [70] too low to pass WP:PROF#C1. Membership in scientific societies, and working for the Russian academy of sciences, are not the sort of honorary memberships needed to pass WP:PROF#C3. The references appear to alternate between Okulov's own publications, and academic publications about background material that do not mention or cite Okulov; a rare exception is reference [2], which actually does cite a paper by Okulov, in passing. None of these references contribute to notability nor provide the material to properly source an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. No indication that he is close to any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Ivanov (model)[edit]

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:NMODEL. Both references are from 2013 (one is broken). Doesn't seem to have his models.com profile updated since 2017. Does not meet wp:ANYBIO or wp:GNG. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, Fashion, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and United States of America. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 22:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Zinovyev (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Few sources exist in Google, Google Books, JSTOR, TWL, and others. 2003 LN 6 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 18:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be much to go on here. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I noticed some football players doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBIO & WP:SPORTSCRIT, with reference to databases which is not WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately, this is one of them! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)[edit]

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

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Scholar returns 2 results for "Muscovite-Ukrainian War" and 9 results for "Ukrainian-Muscovite War", of which only 1 refers to 1658. Clearly a new title is needed in this case and this seems to fall under the Ruin and Russo-Polish War articles (which are sorely lacking details for this period). Even the Ukrainian-language sources cited use "Russian-Ukrainian war" and this looks like to have been the original title on the Ukrainian Wikipedia before it was moved. In my opinion this looks like revisionist history referring to an uprising led by Ivan Vyhovsky (a pro-Polish hetman). For example this source says: "Khmel'nitskii died in 1657, and Poland and the new Cossack leader, Vygovskii, now accepted Polish lordship over Ukraine. Vygovskii joined Poland in the resumption of war with Russia in October 1658... But in Ukraine, Cossacks of the Left Bank... rebelled against Vygovskii's pro-Polish alliance... Vygovskii fled to Poland, and Trubetskoi marched to Pereiaslavl', where he persuaded the Left Bank Cossacks to accept him as hetman in October 1659" (p. 214). I do not think it is suited for a spin-off article; I would say merge instead but most the article is unsourced. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell: in 1658 Vyhovsky again recognized the Cossacks' dependence on Poland; the Union of Hadziach was signed. This resumed Polish-Russian fighting interrupted earlier by a truce; Russia invaded Ukraine seeking to subjugate Vyhovsky, having some Cossacks (including Sich) behind it.

In May, the PLC again concluded a truce with Russia, but the Sejm approved the Hadziach Union, and Vyhovsky received small reinforcements from the crown army. Thus came the Battle of Konotop, which Vyhovsky won. In August, however, a Cossack uprising broke out against Vyhovsky, who was overthrown and the new Hetman Yurko Khmelnytsky subordinated himself to Moscow, supported by a large part of the Cossacks. The war continued.

As you can see, there is no war between “Ukraine” and “Moscow”, but there is an internal rivalry between the divided Cossacks, which take place in the context of the Polish-Russian war. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that Google Scholar returns almost no results for "Russian-Ukrainian war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" referring to 1658/1659 (if we limit the years to before the current war then almost all results refer to the Russian Civil War and a hypothetical war excluding post-2014 publications referring to the current war but slipped through). Same goes for "Muscovite-Cossack war" etc. I see a few results for Ukrainian-language sources but there needs to be a deeper look to see which ones are reliable. At the moment I see very little that supports the idea of a separate war. For example there are plenty of Ukrainian-language sources that refer to a Soviet occupation of Ukraine until 1991 but this was determined to be a fringe view. In fact we had an AfD for this (and this was also a translation of an article from the Ukrainian Wikipedia). Mellk (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Salvage what is possible from the article and merge it into the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) page. Noorullah (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yury Dud#vDud. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VDud[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is an unusual situation; the subject is a YouTube channel. The creator (Yury Dud) is wp:notable primarily via unrelated areas. The references here barely even mention VDud much less GNG coverage and there really isn't coverage derived from them. This is basically nothing but a self-written catalog of the YouTube channel. The article on the creator seems to have encyclopedic coverage of vDud, but is also confusing, seeming to be covering unrelated things as being vD. IMO the tiny bit of enclyclopedic content here should be merged into Yury Dud. Someday if someone could get GNG references and derive content from them that might viable. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yury_Dud#vDud, where the subject is already covered. Does not appear to be independently notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested in the comment above seems like the best choice, the Youtube channel doesn't seem to have much coverage we could use.Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ecrusized (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~the killing of at least 16 civillians and the targeting of civillian infrastructure is absolutely news Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)~~ User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn’t. Russia has been deliberately attacking civilian targets for a significant amount of time now. This strike is no different than the thousands of other attacks. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"is absolutely news" @Monochromemelo1: Please read policies before commenting on your interpretation of their shortcuts. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which states that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Quote, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is news, but this isn't a newspaper. We need some sort of coverage to build an encyclopedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's war. There are airstrikes. What else is there to say? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~almost every israeli air strike is documented during the Israel–Hamas war why cant the same be done for air strikes by russia? Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)~~ User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Ecrusized (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT a war according to Russia. They call it a "special operation". Ukraine calls it act of terror during war. Both deserve an article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or delete collectively. A missile strike against a residential building murdering 17 civilians and injuring over 60 others should sound like a highly notable event worth an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, because the fascist Russian state has been targeting civilians indiscriminately in a disgusting effort to break their will to resist, these have indeed become routine. But this article is no less notable than many that have already had an article for some time, such as 2024 Donetsk attack, 2024 Pokrovsk missile strike or August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike, just to name a few. We should either keep them all or delete them all. We need a centralized discussion to decide what do we do with these articles and establish a threshold of notability. By deleting one article every few months while three other similar articles have been written we do not go anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a number of articles about similar russian airstrikes against civilians in Ukraine, with more or less casualties: April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike, 2023 Uman missile strike, Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. --Lystopad (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we can decide whether this fails WP:NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be deleted; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there's missile strikes being launched into Ukraine consistently, this one missile strike produced a significant casualty count compared to the others. Due to that, I see it as a notable event that is significant enough to have it's own article. Nintenga (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similarly as the August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike--Noel baran (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Start larger discussion The only thing that makes this stand out from the dozens of other articles about similar airstrikes is that this comes at a time when Ukraine is running criticially low on air defense missiles, and it probably has a higher than average number of casualties. As Super Dro said, it would be good to start a more centralized discussion about these articles rather than just make a decision for one of them every few months. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Nintenga and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We also have articles for other terror attacks across Europe, such as Hanau shootings or 2016 Berlin truck attack, where less people were killed. User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article."

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: Perhaps open your eyes before so presumptuous? "WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ecrusized (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many casualties, has significant coverage in various reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources except for routine news coverage. To address some of the keep arguments:
1. A number of people were killed – Just an arbitrary number that is not in any way relevant to WP:N or WP:NEVENTS.
2. Similar articles exist or they should all be discussed together – That doesn't mean this should be kept. The notability of this article has to stand on its own, and there's no guarantee that those article are about notable subjects.
3. It's bad, a war crime, or a terrorist attack – WP:TDLI/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here to pick sides in a real world conflict. In some !votes this approaches WP:SOAPBOXing, which is a conduct issue and should result in a warning.
4. Its notability can be determined later – Then it can have an article later. We don't create articles about things that might be notable in the future.
5. It's covered in reliable sources – WP:GNG requires that these be secondary sources, and WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE require that coverage continue beyond the news cycle.

I'm hoping that the closer will consider whether these keep !votes are valid, and I suggest that editors be reminded about WP:ATA when they use arguments that are listed there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The keep votes are valid. Many similar articles indicate consensus.

Its notability is already established.

It is not a routine coverage cause it's a not routine event. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see it as that this article wins all the Wikipedia:Notability-points. I am also puzzled why this article is up for deletion when all these US high school Wikipedia articles exist of schools whom are neither notable nor special. I can not understand why somebody would think that Gilbert High School of Arizona has a bigger impact than this horrible attack on innocent people in Chernihiv. Not that I am advocating that there are too many Wikipedia articles about US high schools, I am saying that it is better to have too many articles (on Wikipedia) then too few. I also think that nobody should become used or in any way or "administrative" the death of innocent people by bombing in any war or conflict everywhere. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES:

Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations.

I don't know whether that specific school is notable or not, but this is generally why there is a lot of articles about schools where there otherwise wouldn't be. Presumably, AfD discussions would delete some/most of these schools, but if there's no reason for an AfD, many of them will remain MarkiPoli (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of notability for this article. Russia has been indiscriminately striking civilians for a long while now, so one of these airstrikes is not independently notable. Like Thebiguglyalien said, many of the !keep votes include obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, even one of them citing a US high school having an article as the reason why this should be kept. In addition, being a terrorist strike does not make it notable. There have been countless bombings in war zones that don’t have articles. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep or merge to a list article on comparable strikes in the conflict. I came here to close the discussion, but I find many of the "keep" !votes are poorly articulated in policy. Nonetheless, the article contains sources providing substantial coverage for the event, sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and I don't know how coverage of an airstrike killing a dozen and a half civilians can be considered "routine". BD2412 T 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources per WP:GNG would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see this article passing the WP:TENYEARTEST. Number of casualties, while tragic, does not indicate this attack being more notable, and nothing indicates this airstrike is anything special aside from lack of defense missiles. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event covered by many news sources. Does not fail WP:NEVENT. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another attack in the ongoing conflict, I don't see this as notable. Sadly, these events happen almost daily now. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep but if it's merged, a good place would be Chernihiv strikes (2022–present). Niafied (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Georgia (country), and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 April 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 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Russian Aerospace Forces Antonov An-26 crash[edit]

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

Fails GNG and EVENTCRIT. Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting effects. No recent news on the topic so fails both CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The crash catches my attention because it it doesn't sound like a "normal" accident. To me it sounds the plane was shot out of the sky or blown up either accidentally or on purpose. Anyway, both ways, that would make it plausible that Russia tries to cover it up. Due to the contoversies and because I think it would be a shame if this information would be lost, I vote Weak keep. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the plane were shot down, then the accident doesn't exactly warrant an article as it has already been mentioned in: List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War and List of Russian military accidents.

Even then, the fact that there hasn't been any news related to this accident since 2022 already fails, as I've said, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED.

The event fails WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE as most sources were covered by russian media outlets and didn't receive significant or in-depth coverage to be considered notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument on losing the information is pretty weak per WP:LOSE as this article already fails multiple guidelines. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, instead of deleting: merge and redirect to List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War#Russian aircraft losses might be the best option. I would propose stating there (including removing the current "cashed" typo):
Registration number RF-36074 crashed in Uryv-Pokrovka, Voronezh Oblast. The aircraft exploded in the air and fell between three villages. Fragments of the wreck scattered of over a large area.^[1] According to the Ministry of Defense, the preliminary cause was equipment failure.^[2] According to eyewitnesses the cause was possibly a shell hit.^[3] All of the undisclosed number of occupants were killed, consisting of crew members and paratroopers.^[3] Usually this type of aircraft has six crew members.^[1]
82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like, judging from other entries in the article, that we should follow the same style therefore I would suggest keeping the entry as it is:

Registration number RF-36074 cashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Allegedly caused by a technical malfunction. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a non-established style should never be regarded as more important than the quality of the prose or an inhibition of content. Note the current Russian state owned Tass source has an interest and might be unreliable. The sources I use are more journalistic and not one-sided. (And what I said, don’t keep the typo :) ) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already there and it needs to be kept simple. I do agree with replacing the typo. I'm suggesting the following:

Registration RF-36074 crashed in Voronezh Oblast, killing an undisclosed number of occupants. Preliminary reports indicate a technical malfunction.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
^ "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.
^ ^a ^b "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.

Comment I tried to improve the article with these edits. I expanded the article (among others witnesses reports, noted there were paratroopers onboard and the number of crew members) and added an extra source. However, this was reverted by Lachielmao (talk · contribs). 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I had no issue with the new content and sources added, but there was speculation used without a source as well as rewriting sections with worse grammar and writing prose. Lachielmao (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lachielmao: I don't understand why you say I added speculations without a source. See here the version after I expanded it. Everything was well referenced. (Bye the way, it sounds ambiguous when you're saying "I had no issue with the new content and sources added" because you removed it.) 82.174.61.58 (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be preferable if you discussed this on the talk page instead of this page as this is a discussion on whether to keep or delete the article, not to talk about whether or not these edits should be included. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per nom, this fails WP:SUSTAINED, and this crash doesn't seem to be any more notable than the many Russian aircraft crashes listed in the List of aircraft losses during the Russo-Ukrainian War that don't have their own article, so we should just merge the basic information about the crash there. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Burtasova[edit]

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

Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Sources of dubious quality"? They are all from FIDE, the ultimate reliable source for chess. PamD 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability. They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person. None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster, perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6. Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada.^[1] -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022). "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game". Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved 23 April 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the comments above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Also have this article [71] about this person. I think we have just enough to squeak past notability. This interview on CBC just a few days ago [72], while not about her confirms basic details, and this other story about her hired by a Toronto club [73]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oaktree's references. That's two different articles in the nation's biggest national paper - plus the local foreign one in a New York city paper. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar (tank)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article simply needs more sources. Salfanto (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say this because the story of the tank is relatively recent Salfanto (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three questions, mostly directed to Salfanto but any editor may take them up:

Do the sources this article simply needs exist? If yes, then please present them here.
If the answer to the above question is no, then should we reasonably expect supporting reliable, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage to emerge in the near future? If yes, then this article was created WP:TOOSOON, but userification/draftification might be a viable alternative to deletion until such sources emerge.
If the answer to the above question is no, then is a redirect to T-72 operators and variants#Soviet Union and Russia a viable alternative to deletion?

Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking these questions.

So far I have found 3 sources which call the tank Tsar.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/characteristics_of_trophy_russian_tsar_ew_for_t_72b3m_tank_given_by_ukrainian_expert-10115.html

https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-anti-drone-tank

https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-russian-anti-drone-electronic-warfare-tank-captured

Again, tank you for asking me those questions (pun intended) Salfanto (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete This seems to be a single tank with a bunch of field modifications which got taken a week ago. It's way too soon to think that there is going to be lasting interest in one tank, especially given that the modifications appear not to have worked. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are just enough sources to justify the article. Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. An interesting question is do we have other articles on other tanks? If so, then may be there is lasting interest in tanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: There is precedent for it, as some individual tanks may be considered notable. Compare Cobra King (tank) to this article, the former of which has many secondary sources discussing it with a sufficient level of depth, whereas for this article I feel we're scraping the barrel - the majority of the sources currently cited do not even mention the tank once. Loafiewa (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT, for lack of secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only relevant because it was in a war-related news cycle. Sources seem to be the normal sites that cover anything and everything that happens in Ukraine. An interesting event, but not a notable one. No evidence that this will see any further or substantial coverage. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyosha (tank)[edit]

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

Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is video footage of the tank's actions Salfanto (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to T-80 models. The article is very poorly sourced, and "video footage" is not going to add reliability or credibility (it's easy to fabricate). In the doctrine of Russian military deception there is explicitly a measure named "Disinformation" (дезинформация). Under this measure, Russia actively seeks military advantage by tactics such as "untrue information to journalists". This accompanies concealment, imitation, simulation, and demonstrative manoeuvres (false trails). In other words, denial and deception come as standard in war or peace, and this is war. Do we believe that Putin congratulated some soldiers as heroes, etc? Yes. Do we believe that this was the work of one super-tankish-tank and its heroic crew? Not especially. Is this an encyclopedic article? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article is to tell the history of the tank similarly to other articles about named tanks such as Eagle 7 or Bomb Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe that wikipedia is best when not biased to one side Salfanto (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with Tsar (tank) and several other articles by this user, there is minimal coverage by secondary sources, and as such it is padded out with WP:COATRACK content. Loafiewa (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mr. Komori (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Others[edit]

Draft[edit]

Serbia[edit]

Zoran Kalabić[edit]

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

The article is written in a blattantly promo way WP:PROMO. While there are some resources, there is a problem of WP:SNG, since most available resources are very promo-like, and there is no secondary and reliable coverage. After an online research, most available resources lack of independency and are written in a blatant way to promote this person, and most of these resources in a similar way are presented in his website: https://zorankalabic.com/biography/. It should be noted that there is a weird editing history, since the main editor created almost entirely a few months ago both the English and Serbian Wikipedia articles of this person, having a very minimal presence in editing other articles of Serbian people. Lately, the templates with notability issues were removed without any valid explanation, and the photos that are blatantly promo and were initially removed, were restored. Apart from notability issues with lack of reliable and independent resources, there may be a strong problem of WP:COI. Chiserc (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Serbia. Chiserc (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is quite strange request here. Article is not promo, as there is nothing in it to make it like that. Subject is notable and i already explained that i have seen this person on television receiving highest medal of Republic of Serbia after some large donation to the hospital, and wanted to create article as it was incredible for me the person of such importance does not have article on Wikipedia. Some parts of the article were edited and fixed by other editors that actually wanted to contribute instead of this user who only insisted to tag the article and inform others to delete it, without actually working on article. That is normal way of working on article. Notability is without questions no problem at all, many sources are top level independent news agencies of the world so nominator also misrepresented sources quality. Photos were not deleted because they were promo, that is another blatant lie by nominator but because it took some time to confirm original ownership of them by website where i found them. When that was done they were restored as in many other articles. In the end article history shows only good proper editors who are actually trying to make article of this notable person better, and nominations without any proper Wikipedia work which fails good faith guideline, making false accusations about original author of the article. Also, templates with notability issues are not intended to indefinitely tag the articles, but to make explanation that further work is needed. Bit if none is actually trying to fix the article and tags are standing there for weeks without any further comment on talk page or edit, wiki guidelines allow them to be removed. You are not allowed just to restore them and never to point in detail what do you find problematic with this article. I feel that I should protect the article I wanted to create but not because I have COI, i dont, but because this person received highest awards by several countries and donated to many causes, which make it more then valuable and notable addition to Wiki. It baffles me is there anything else behind this request as most of the things article is nominated for are actually misrepresented, also having in mind nominator agenda to delete it for quite some time. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage from reliable sources Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:RetroCosmos, Most important national public news services of European countries are very much reliable sources. Talking like Radio television of Serbia for example, there isn't anything more important and reliable than that. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Sources that appear to be should not be acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 21:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Initial reaction is Delete. Article is a gushing account of this subject. Definitely MOS:PEACOCK. In conjunction with the simultaneous creation of English and Serbian articles, and a block of photos going up on Commons (lifted straight off subject's own website, with release emailed to VRT by the subject - WP:COI much?), this has the feeling of a PR job. Also the fact that the Wikidata Description was "one of the most successful Serbian businessmen in the diaspora" instead of a more appropriate "Serbian businessman". HOWEVER, this is only a Weak Delete. There might be a case to keep given that there appears to be a legit and (minorly) notable award in the Order of Karađorđe's Star. I'm mindful of WP:Globalise - I would not expect a lot of coverage in English language media and a lack of a profile in the BBC or NYT does not imply a lack of notability! Coverage in Serbian or German would also be acceptable. In that case though, this article needs an end-to-end rewrite to encyclopaedic style (WP:MOS). About 30% of it needs to go, and the rest needs to be backed up by independent cites, not the subject's personal website.Hemmers (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemmers is there a way to ask you to change your mind to week keep? I will be more then willing to follow your guidelines and to make article better, but he is really notable in more than a few countries following his donations and support. I find out about him over news following his donation of equipment to children's hospital, and it was incredible to me that such a person does not have Wikipedia article. There isn't anything of those things you mentioned. I was the one who took the photos from website because I found them there, and wanted to make article better as other articles look better with images. There are many important news services publishing about him, including central national ones like Radio Television of Serbia. Would be more then interested in fixing the article, even if it would be smaller, but i cannot understand why would we delete notable subject just because some of the content is not ok. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. wikidata description was the first sentence of the article, but that was deleted after other users explained it to me that we cannot use "big words" in articles. I didnt know that, and that's why it was like that. Please assume good faith, i didn't mean anything bad, and its not promotion, i just wanted to create nice article for someone who created many good things for many countries. That is my only motivation. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is that I have searched for sources using google.at, google.rs and google.sr in an attempt to find additional coverage. Each search (for both Zoran Kalabić and Зоран Калабић) returns very few results, at the top of which are these wikipedia articles and the subject's personal website and social media.

Whilst he does have the Order, this is not itself enough to establish notability. There are lots of people who do a great deal of philanthropic work, appear in local media and even get an MBE (in the UK). But they don't all get an article. WP requires sustained and substantial coverage which I am struggling to see.

I am open to the idea that there is coverage which has not been indexed by google (because their coverage of non-English material is often flaky, particularly for Cyrillic and other non-Latin scripts), and that is why I am wary of deleting articles for subjects covered by those languages simply because Google does not trivially surface a load of English-language sources. There are undoubtedly many notable Serbs, Kenyans, Indonesians and Malay who are omitted from Wikipedia because native-English speakers are notoriously bad at foreign languages.

Nonetheless, you need to bring those sources to bear, because I am increasingly unsure that they exist. A mention in RTS is not notable (everyone who receives an MBE is listed in The Times, but that does not automatically earn them an article). Likewise several of the sources are basically press releases or interviews - not substantial independent coverage.Hemmers (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are many more sources in Serbian I didn't included in the article, but I will list you here and add an article more if that will help, now I understand it will. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand why this article is nominated for deletion. It is quite relevant; this person is a well-known public figure. The article has reliable sources, and it is generally well written; there is no need to delete it. If someone is missing something, they can add or edit it.Bandzimir (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is generally well written "generally" is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to agree with Hemmers that the only minor and possible aspect that may imply some notability is the Order of Karađorđe's Star. However, I have checked that these state awards and orders have been given by President of Serbia to many people, and, only during the last very few years, hundreds of institutions and people have taken this or even a higher state order - check the website: https://www.predsednik.rs/predsednik/ukazi-o-odlikovanjima. For this reason, while this award can indeed establish some notability, I see that this one fact cannot validate the notability of WP:ANYBIO for a well-known and significant award or honor, especially if the article continues to be a WP:SOAPBOX. Chiserc (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but this is again very misleading I don't understand why are you doing this. The list you sent is a general list of all state awards that have been given by president, every single metal and awarded that was given throughout the years. That does not imply that quantity diminished quality, as it is one more lie in this nomination. Only 10 was given for entire year for entire country. So this award recived by this person is by far something important as it is for other countries. Please stop with this anti propaganda. Article is NOT the soap, and you have never pointed anything that is wrong with the article but you just keep repeating and tagging it without any proper explanation this is actually disruptive editing. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article should stay since there is sufficient evidence that he is a public figure, but it should be reduced to appropriate size. For example, two photos from ERA events are absolutely not needed. One is more than enough. Parts of some sentences like "and is currently preparing for a doctorate" (Why is this relevant?) and "After a series of successful business years" (What's the evidence?) really make this article look like a PR project. Whoever wrote this should take care of it. But I still think that article should not be deleted. Tresnjevo (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your productive comments, i will fix and delete all of those great guidelines you pointed out. This means a lot to me to understand editing style, thank you. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

Slovakia[edit]

Others[edit]

Slovenia[edit]

Others[edit]

Shortcuts

WP:DSSPAIN
WP:AFD/SPAIN

Spain[edit]

List of La Liga broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Deportivo de La Coruña season[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG. Already deleted for same reasons in 2020. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Crowsus (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Even though they are in a lower division in the season in question, Deportivo La Coruña's notability is undoubted. Svartner (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per last AFD. Giant Snowman 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Svartner. Continuity in the coverage of a historically professional team is important in an encyclopedia. Anwegmann (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even know they are a notable club doesn't mean their seasons qualify under the SNG WP:NSEASONS, they are too far down the ladder now. So delete per notability on the season. Govvy (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This season is very notable because of the nature of it and the circumstances regarding the club at this time, as it entered a new era. - Cr7s 190.153.84.93 (talk) 02:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La alta escuela[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show they meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have found 4 citations and added to the article, including one from Vice. The reliability of VICE is questionable per WP:RSP, however, I believe that would not apply to entertainment and music articles. In addition, the band may meet criteria #7 of WP:MUSICBIO, which says "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city."RolandSimon (talk) 03:21, 20 April 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) 11:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

CfD speedy: Category:Andalusian footballers → Category:Footballers from Andalusia
(+ 18 others from Category:Spanish footballers by autonomous community). Crowsus (talk) 09:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Sweden Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Switzerland Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ukraine

United Kingdom

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Yugoslavia

[kommer-1] "Транспортник прошел между селами" [Transporter passed between the villages]. Kommersant (in Russian). 2022-02-25. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

[2] "В Воронежской области потерпел крушение самолет Ан-26" [An-26 plane crashed in Voronezh region]. Mir 24 (in Russian). February 24, 2022. Archived from the original on 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2022-12-18.

[VRN-3] "В Воронежской области упал самолет Су-25" [A Su-25 plane crashed in the Voronezh region]. vrntimes (in Russian). 25 February 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2024.

[4] Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022). "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game". Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved 23 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]