< May 23	May 25 >

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

The result was keep‎. Arguments for keeping or merging are stronger than those for deletion. A discussion about merging with History of human migration or another target can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of explorations[edit]

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

Appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list without clear inclusion criteria. It states that it has the most "important" explorations without referencing who calls them important besides the article creator. Even if notable, it would fall under WP:TNT and is invalid as a navigational list as it does not link to articles specifically about those explorations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Archaeology, Geography, Spaceflight, and Transportation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least in its current form. I have no idea what the ambit is supposed to be - what are "state societies"? Does the author have any idea what they are intending, as that term is linked to the utterly uninformative Complex society? If what is meant is "state-sponsored exploration", then why does it include entires like the hypothetical discovery of Hawaii in late antiquity, or Livingstone's privately funded explorations? No rhyme or reason here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A society with a state; the opposite of a stateless society. It's a well-defined and widely used term in the social sciences. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so. That should link to Complex society#States then, I guess? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, edit, and update. A 2001 long-term article, the page lists the first sponsored human expeditions of various locals. The topic is notable, links to various expeditionary pages, and groups these expeditions on one page. The criteria needs to be worded differently, but that's a minor point in the overall scope of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ARTICLEAGE. When it was written is not proof it should be kept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essays have some who agree and others who disagree. Early Wikipedia articles which have stood the test of 23 years of time should receive more leeway and correction. This one has a very good premise which can be refined and expanded. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the one hand, this is a very bare-bones list, and seems to have been so for quite a while. There's no real context, and it isn't exactly the best-formatted list ever. That said, I do think that the idea behind it is notable enough. I personally think that it should be rewritten as prose and moved to History of human exploration, but it could also be rewritten as prose and merged with History of human migration (though they are substantially different, especially when it comes to things like oceans or planets). I don't think keeping it as a list is a good idea, even though List of explorers is a good, closely related list, as explorations really should have some explanation and context to them, whereas explorers don't really need that. Ships & Space_(Edits) 00:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree with Ships&Space. Overhauling should be done, not deletion. Lorstaking (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to a rewrite as a prose article. But in the 23 years the article has been around, nothing has been done to fix the problem. I am not sure why you believe it will be fixed in another 23 years. A deletion may encourage a new article to be created that is actually notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Common sense, just list any explorations that have their own articles or have articles for the explorers who are notable for making them. Dream Focus 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty much per Dream Focus. I would note that a noteworthy exploration need not have its own article to merit inclusion, if it is mentioned and cited in a supertopic article. BD2412 T 22:55, 24 May 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, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a low-quality list article duplicating List of explorers. Not opposed to keeping this somewhere outside of mainspace if wanted as a reference for a stand-alone history of exploration article. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm very borderline, but will lean keep because I think the list can be improved. I think it needs to be refocused by being retitled to something like 'List of notable explorations', and it needs a very clear and stringent inclusion criteria that other lists have, for example, List of video games considered the best.

Melmann 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Might need some improvement but i think that it could be fixable and should be kept Onlygoodvibez (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bahria Town#Bahria Town Nawabshah. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahria Town Nawabshah[edit]

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - the nominator nominated 7 articles for deletion within the scope of 2 minutes, with identical deletion rationales. I strongly doubt any serious WP:BEFORE was performed here. --Soman (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, So, basically, just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. Why don't you come with some coverage that meets the GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to my check, I looked for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to establish notability, but I found this and not much more detailed coverage. These articles lack in-depth coverage of the subject and can’t establish notability. The subject fail to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is this a city, a neighborhood, or an apartment building? Is it under construction or complete? None of the references answer these questions, or give any substantial independent coverage. Bahria Town#Bahria Town Nawabshah is an acceptable redirect target in lieu of deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zurab Gurielidze[edit]

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

Can't find any passable source for WP:ANYBIO. Subject also doesn't pass WP:NPROF inherently. It's also lacking in terms of WP:GNG. Also, can't find good figures in directories like Google Scholar. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Google Scholar citation counts are not promising for WP:PROF [3]. Maybe there are GNG-worthy sources hidden from me by the language barrier but we can't keep an article unless that sort of thing is actually demonstrated, not merely hoped-for. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A text haphazardly put together (e.g. "a gameologist") by a semi-kamikaze account about a non-notable subject. An associate professor of undisputed-here integrity but, nevertheless, non-article worthy. Wilipedia is not a collection of randomly gathered information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Winton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. Lack of quality independent WP:SIGCOV, some cited awards don't seem to check out. Previously PRODded, no indication that the subject is notable or outstanding in their field. Content is WP:NOTRESUME. Likely WP:COI, possibly undisclosed WP:PAID, the creator appears to work only on topic closely related to the commercial entity that the subject has an interest in. Melmann 20:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First see User:JNY D/sandbox/Nick Winton, submitted for review and an attempt to game the system. Second, fails WP:BIO. Are the awards even significant? WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT applies. WP:ROTM architect doing his hob 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That user subpage is now redirected to the article we are discussing. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a paid contribution. Please see the user talk page of the creating editor, where they have disclosed the details, albeit imperfectly 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to above, the paid disclosure only happened after this nomination and more importantly, after the WP:PAID edits were made. Melmann 08:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Timtrent, company has won a few awards and some coverage in RS, but not Winton on his own. Wikishovel (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A rather long list of awards, but I'm not seeing much notability. I can't find any references about this architect, this seems like an exaggerated PROMO, almost to the point of absurdity (I stopped counting at 30 awards)... This much "notability" and no mentions in any RS, something doesn't add up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this text of an extreme promotional, if not vanity, nature, about a subject that lacks Wikinotablity. The shining lights of the extensive list of awards could cause temporary eye blindness and perhaps also mind numbing but let's collect our bearings: The awards are almost all bestowed upon firms with or to which our subject is related. E.g. this "Architect (Medium Firm)" award by The Architect's Newspaper goes to AW-ARCH; we learn that the firm has been cited in the 2022 Honor Awards for Design Excellence of the Boston Society of Architects, but, as shown here, the awards are still to be determined; the firm has been ostensibly feted by the same outfit, yet here we learn that none such award was not even handed over; and so on. Determined: Yes. Notable: No. -The Gnome (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You Call This Music?! Volume 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable compilation album that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. The only review I could find is the OC Weekly one linked, no other reviews or WP:SIGCOV found. No clear redirect target as the record label was deleted for being non-notable. Last AfD (in 2006) closed as no consensus. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and California. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of sources; arguments from the old AfD no longer hold up. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD before so a Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lots of hits on the name, but none about this album. Not meeting notability requirements these days on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "It has lots of Google hits, so it must be notable" was basically the result of the last AfD, what fun times those were. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here's the linkrotted OC Weekly review. That's not gonna do it. So, can we merge to Volume 1? No article. That album got a 14-word review in the forgotten pages of Punk Planet 54 and an admittedly much better review in Razorcake #2. I can't link you that one because I'm 90% sure the host for the pdf I read is violating copyright. Trust me that it's a pretty good review, but the publication is a self-described fanzine and so—despite its history—lacks the editorial control to be a reliable source to establish notability. Well, let's just merge it to the record label, then. Guess not that, either. Lubal (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as subject crashingly fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No need to leave this open for three more days. Owen× ☎ 21:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Babangida (footballer)[edit]

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

I've been unable to find if this Nigerian footballer who recently died in a car crash passes WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He won the 1993 FIFA U-17 World Championship. Don't delete the article. 186.176.235.73 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That has no relevance to SPORTCRIT or GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An ATD is to merge/redirect to Tijani Babangida where he is currently mentioned, not least since Tijani was in the same car crash. Another alternative to deletion would of course be to find sigcov in the Netherlands. Geschichte (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He play at the Eredivisie and won the Nigerian Premier League in 1992. 201.206.42.68 (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's enough coverage of his death, including pieces like this, which show notability. He had 50+ games in the Dutch professional leagues, the issue is searching is skewed to just reports of his death. Giant Snowman 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Player with sources and pro career including 50+ appearances in fully pro Dutch league and definitly has more offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Won the 1992 NPL. Sources about this entity are PROBABLY offline plus the sources presented by GiantSnowman. Best, Reading Beans 13:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Easy keep here. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamales Lardi[edit]

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

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia. The article should therefore be kept. Dlarrpi (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't about this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only contributions by Dlarrpi have been to this article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person. Rest are fluff pieces or PR items... I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Oaktree b and DE above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A (P)romotional WP:MILL. Refbomb also incorporated. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The photo portrait of Lardi submitted by single-purpose account Dlarrpi is formidable but cannot compensate for the astonishing lack of independent notability. Our subject is certainly determined, so the future may hold differently. -The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Below Zero (1930 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. I could not find any significant coverage, though coverage in databases and WP:ROTM sources exists, but this does not help in meeting WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. The article does not meet any other NFILM criteria. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covered in many books, including [4], [5], and [6] DonaldD23 talk to me 23:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Donald23's sources. I strongly suspect you can dig into the Internet Archive for contemporary reviews, also. Honestly, I can't imagine any Laurel and Hardy film failing inclusion standards. Lubal (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage mentioned by Donaldd23 + some I added to the page (see for yourself) + more existing.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Book of Ether. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akish[edit]

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

Notability doubtful. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this was PRODded in 2008 and then not sent here for some reason. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:28, 14 May 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 11:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does that comment mean I’m supposed to read the relevant guidelines and then summon a bunch of people here?

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioactiveBoulevardier: Not at all. The patrolling admin extended this AfD discussion for another week due to lack of participation, and this article is not eligible for a soft delete. GrabUp - Talk 08:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Book of Ether: It would be better to redirect this article to Book of Ether. The subject is not eligible for a standalone article due to the lack of coverage. GrabUp - Talk 08:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:33, 24 May 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Liga 1 U-16[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Liga 1 U-14. Quoting from there: "Football tournament for children supported by a couple of primary sources. Utterly insignificant within the football world, fails WP:SIGCOV". Geschichte (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – And delete for 2018 Liga 1 U-16, 2019 Liga 1 U-20, 2019 Liga 1 U-18, 2019 Liga 1 U-16, 2022 Liga 1 U-18. All fail flagrantly in WP:GNG, as they are editions of a youth competition with no relevance. Svartner (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS, we should avoid low level youth football. Govvy (talk) 07:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG because of a lack of significant, independent coverage from RS. Instagram posts don't cut it for notability. Let'srun (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Obviously fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 22:00, 28 May 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French Orthodox Church[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Claims 10 communities in their own official website. The French version was deleted by consensus. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find independent sources that passed WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Fontys University of Applied Sciences#Tilburg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fontys Academy of Journalism[edit]

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

There has not been a source added to this article since it was created in 2006. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Netherlands. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fontys University of Applied Sciences#Tilburg as a premature SPINOFF without prejudice against a justified spinoff. No valid reason to delete was brought forward so tempting to just procedural keep. Merge, however, is a correcter resolution. gidonb (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Appears to fail GNG, and therefore WP:NORG. This, however, is based on an English language source, and better sources proving notability may exist in Dutch. Bgv. (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Norway Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Agnihotri[edit]

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

Cricket is a negligible sport in Norway and is only practiced in select diaspora communities. That explains why there is not a single - zero - hits in any Norwegian media for Pratik Agnihotri. Google yields LinkedIn and some stat sites. I will defer if there is WP:SIGCOV in other languages. Geschichte (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Norway Twenty20 International cricketers Fails WP:GNG, however there is a clear suitable redirect per WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Norway Twenty20 International cricketers. I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG and he's mentioned at the target article. Suonii180 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Amateur Press Association[edit]

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

There is a major lack of sources for verification. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as no coherent policy-based deletion rationale articulated, see NEXIST. Many sources such as this readily available in Google Scholar which even in snippet/preview view substantiate the bare facts of the organization as stated in the article. This is transparently a real, venerable, and notable science fiction society that's been commented upon in the academic press: precisely the sort of thing Wikipedia should cover. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to Jclemens' source, there are several pages about the organization in The Immortal Storm: A History of Science Fiction Fandom, published in 1954. I also found a 1944 newspaper article from the Ontario Expositor about the American and Canadian branches of the organization: "Fiction Stranger Than Truth, State Fans of Fantasy". Toughpigs (talk) 22:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The major problem with this page is that it lacks inline references, which someone has decided consitutes a reason for deletion. It just needs work. This page details an important part of the science fiction fannish world and, as such, needs to be retained. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This is an institution of many decades' duration. AfD should never be used as a method of asking for improvement in citations. (Full disclosure: I was briefly a member of FAPA, and am still a member of another SF a.p.a.). --Orange Mike | Talk 04:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of airports in Israel. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Israel[edit]

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

Poorly cited list that has little or no encyclopedic value. There is one main airport in Israel, one that's mostly domestic (Eilat-Ramon), and one unscheduled (Haifa) with no data present. The comparison of these three airports is mostly useless, as it compares very different things. Artem.G (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Artem.G (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge These are part of a fixed busiest airports in X structure, so the question is whether to keep on that or to merge into List of airports in Israel, which I think makes sense. But we shouldn't lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there are just four numbers in the entire list, two of them duplicated (numbers for Ben Gurion airport are somehow identical in 2020 and 2017), and another one unsourced (Haifa 2017). There is not much to lose, but I agree that merge makes sense. Artem.G (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of airports in Israel leaving redir. There simply isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Zero^talk 01:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of airports in Israel. After expanding, there are more data and sources now. The 2020 Eilat Ramon data point I still could not verify and seems large. Flagged as such. Others I have added and/or corrected. gidonb (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
wikidata query gives the same number, don't know how reliable it is. Artem.G (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking this up, Artem.G! It could be full circle. Still unsure about this one data point. gidonb (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of airports in Israel. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB. This is just a collection of passenger data for a few random years. It seems like the idea is to gather statistics for as many years as possible, but Wikipedia shouldn't be the place to store all those data. Mentioning the latest figures in List of airports in Israel is sufficient. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the busiest airports in Iran. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Airports in Israel. Data from here can be plced in that article if needed. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly sourced list about poorly defined, subjective topic. We need very specific criteria for "busiest" here. Merge or redirect would work, but either way, get rid of this article. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of airports in Israel. It's not notable for a separate article and not all of the information is sourced. Suonii180 (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anotopterus sp. (2008)[edit]

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

This isn't a real fish.

The article cites only one reference, and it's a dead URL. However, an archived version of it does exist on the Wayback Machine:

...And nowhere in the archived source does it say it's a new species. Nor are there any papers from around that time period on Google Scholar about the discovery of a new, as-of-yet-undescribed species of Anotopterus. In fact, the picture given in the article/source is identical to the one FishBase uses for Anotopterus vorax, which already has a page.

Please nuke this page from orbit. It's 16 years overdue.

— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An editor read the cited article and erroneously though it was an undescribed species, when it was a specimen of Anotopterus vorax. Nurg (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, see above comment. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I was led by an online news article (secondary source) to believe it was one of the species discovered by the team that wrote the PDF (primary source) linked here. This is a prime example of why secondary sources are less trustworthy than primary. I'm actually amused at my naive mistake here, since I would have written that stub a few years before I was introduced to actual scientific journal articles. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of political self-immolations#2020s. This incident is already mentioned at the target article but this is a Merge in case any additional information is deemed relevant. It then can be Redirected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-immolation of Maxwell Azzarello[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are, a month after Azzarello's death and there's no evidence of lasting coverage or information about his significance to merit a merger elsewhere. The most recent coverage, also represented in the article, is of the donation of his kidneys. A redirect to List_of_political_self-immolations#2020s where this is mentioned is probably more than sufficient. The AfD was well attended, but explicitly allowed revisiting it, so bringing it back here. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, Politics, United States of America, and New York. Star Mississippi 18:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself yesterday. No evidence of sustained coverage with the article heavily reliant on primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the above per WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. No sustained coverage which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Spinixster (trout me!) 13:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above and WP:NOTNEWS. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait - There are still explicit references to the self-immolation being made as it occurred during the trail kickoff. Wait until after the trial to see if it meets WP:NOTNEWS.GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"New Episode Of The Josh Marshall Podcast: Cricket's Revenge". TPM – Talking Points Memo. May 9, 2024.

Merge to List of political self-immolations, per my comment in the previous AFD. Like I said there: "Yes, it did receive coverage in the news, but a lot of the coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources, and that does not automatically make a news story notable. I'd actually argue that this violates WP:NOTNEWS. For a news story to be notable, it needs to have WP:LASTING effects, which haven't been proven here yet. Furthermore, I have WP:BLP1E concerns about the existence of this article. While it's unfortunate that this man was driven to self-immolate based on a conspiracy theory, this would be a WP:MILL event if it were not for the venue of the self-immolation, outside a courthouse in NYC where Trump is being tried. I'm not seeing why we need a separate article, as opposed to mentioning this incident in another article, per WP:NOPAGE." I still don't see much lasting coverage; it's being mentioned in passing, but almost all sources are from a month ago. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A merge is unnecessary as the incident is already listed at List of political self-immolations and I can't see what specifically needs to be merged. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of political self-immolations#2020s. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, fails NOTNEWS and no content is suitable to merge. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Beach, New South Wales[edit]

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

Since nobody has found a reliable source in over 10 years, there likely won't be any more sources. I couldn't find any sources either. EternalNub (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. EternalNub (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:PROD would have been good for this. Australia has lots of beaches, without sources Delete Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC) Struck per HEY Reywas92^Talk 16:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available, and it's a WP:GEOFEAT so doesn't need to specifically clear the GNG bar: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Needs adoption, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several references, an infobox, and prose to the article. (I've left the "doesn't meet GNG" box up until this AfD is closed - if the closer could please remove it.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have also added a few sources. Expect more could be done on the shark attack aspect by those with access to better Australian sources than I. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:03, 27 May 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaira Meneses[edit]

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines outlined in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It was accepted through AfC by an inexperienced user. The reference to The New York Times is merely a passing mention and is behind a paywall. Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Mexico. Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have added in citations and removed statements where I could not find reliable sources. I think the best coverage of her work is here.^[1]^[2]^[3] As noted above, the New York Times article also includes a few sentences on her performance in New York; I think that this is an acceptable citation even if it is behind a paywall or available at ProQuest. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mention of the paywall was merely for informational purposes and not to express any opposition to the source. Whether behind a paywall or freely accessible, a good reference is always valuable. Hitro talk 11:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Shaw, Punch (2008-05-24). "Guitarists' concert is well worth the wait". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. pp. A16. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
^ Siegel, Steve (2013-10-06). "Music is family affair for guitarist Eliot Fisk". The Morning Call. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
^ Small, Mark (2021). "An Afro-Cuban Legacy". Acoustic Guitar ; San Anselmo. No. 331. pp. 30–33 – via Proquest.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The NY Times is a trivial mention; all I find are streaming sites and record label profiles. Nothing to satisfy musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of failing general and specific criteria of notability, a fact unshaken by the abundance of what the main contributor wants to pass as sources, which are, actually, trivial listings, passing references, and name-drops; nothing affirming independent notability. And advertorials such as the gem in NY Latin Culture: "As you can see from the picture, Zaira puts a lot of energy into her career and plays with a wide open heart," etc. (The NYT article is explicitly dedicated to "guitarist Eliot Fisk".) Our subject is a classical guitarist like millions of others. And it truly does not help that the article has been created and curated by a kamikaze account. -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 28 May 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Legislative Analysis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No change since the last AfD, coverage does not meet WP:ORGCRITE--the article's creator should have challenged the close by requesting that it be relisted, but instead went straight to RFUD. The additional sources linked in the discussion which they claim demonstrate notability do not include in-depth independent coverage of the organization that would satisfy WP:ORGCRITE. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the log over the last week shows I have made a number of attempts to address the concerns you raised. Additionally, I just added a piece on ILA's data (written 3 hours ago) by Fox News' Deroy Murdock on DailySignal (the platform of the largest conservative thinktank in the world). Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/05/24/democrats-not-republicans-are-capitol-hills-true-extremists/ Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking through the sources, this article fails WP:NORG. Needs more articles directly on the org itself - the article linked here is not at all significant coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please note the extensive write ups on the organization by both Fox News and state outlets:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-conservative-group-grades-lawmakers-limited-government-principles-see-where-yours-stands. https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_17db6053-4975-5b50-b1e0-3fe3ef4e4317.html

Additionally, please note the utilization of the ILA by the Nikki Haley campaign and the fact the organization's CEO was named by the Washingtonian as one of the Top 500 most influential in nation on policy due to the impact of their reports. I believe all of those factors coupled with the significant number of mentions by Members of Congress confirm the ILA meets WP:NORG. I closely follow right-of-center political non-profits and can confirm the ILA's media coverage and influence far exceeds many of the other organizations with pages on Wikipedia. Finally, I will note that the ILA is only a little over a year old and clearly an up and coming organization if you do research into what it has done so far. Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 22:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the Gillette News-Record article might be borderline (though, being mostly quotes means that it wouldn't be secondary even though it's independent, and all four criteria have to be met by the same source). Being an up and coming organization is a clear indication that it is likely simply too soon to have an article on it, the criteria would normally only after they are already successful or prominent, not likely to do so in the future (i.e. § Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time). The Fox article does not clearly meet ORGIND, and even if we were to make an exception on the general consensus on think tanks in this case, the Daily Signal article is clearly WP:RSOPINION and therefore not considered reliable for statements of fact.

I would strongly advise if you do wish to continue working on an article about this organisation, that you do so as a draft, and not move it to mainspace without review by the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process. While closely following such organisations would probably help you develop an article, I don't believe your evaluation of the sources accurately reflect the standards they are assessed on. As for the other organisations for which coverage on this one far exceeds, I would say they most likely would be deleted if they cannot be brought to standard, but most such articles are not reviewed regularly (after all, we have 6 million of them, that would take some time). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability bar for companies and organisations is deliberately set high. I'm not seeing "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The article about Wyoming legislators criticising a report from the organisation is not sufficient and not "addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth." as required. Per WP:SIRS, part of WP:NCORP, "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability; each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability." AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reviewed sources and feedback from discussion. It appears general consensus is Fox News and Gillette News Record pieces are borderline, but technically meet WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. I concur Daily Signal fails WP:ORGIND. Would like to see additional sources but believe enough to scrape by. Tremendous amount of attention provided to the org even if not necessarily primary WP source material is what I believe puts it over top. In just past 24 hours the org has been referenced by over dozen plus members of congress (press releases, socials, etc.) – clearly a very notable org. If this was an old/inactive org that's one thing, but WP has been more lenient to nonprofits. SamwiseTarly (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 16:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer SamwiseTarly has acknowledged that they are associated with the subject of this article; as such they have a conflict of interest with regard to this subject. I have given them a link to the appropriate guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Ok, well thanks for pointing out that social media stuff. Did more research as I just could not understand why/how the ILA could have this level of influence and following among so many members of congress and not also have a whole ton of other articles in its operation. Well, it turns out ILA is the affiliate of the Conservative Partnership Institute (a policy and research arm). That is why most of the press on ILA is primarily targeted to the studies and the findings. Anyhow, now have a number of other major sources like New York Times and Guardian to cite which should hopefully now finally solve any of the concerns folks have previously had. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/us/politics/trump-conservative-partnership-institute.html Politicalorganizationjunkie (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... The NYT article does not even mention ILA. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politicalorganizationjunkie - I've struck through your bolded 'keep' above - you have already cast a !vote, you can't cast another one. You are permitted to make general comments, but no more bolded 'keeps' please. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as a technical pass of ORGIND. If that isn't sufficiently clear, then an AfC review is required. Delete, and strongly advise against recreation without review. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:26, 31 May 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Sakaria[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not seem notable as a sportsperson. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. We tend not to keep NZ players who have not played at top level Super Rugby. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bauman[edit]

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

Moved unilaterally to mainspace after prior draftification. I see poor referencing, churnalism, and lists of "stuff" albeit as prose. WP:BIO insists on references for facts subject to challenge, and there is a shortfall, so I see a WP:BIO failure. I also see WP:ADMASQ for a WP:ROTM "cross-platform media executive, filmmaker, print and broadcast journalist, and environmentalist." doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. The sourcing used is either primary or passing mentions. Nothing we'd use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Refer to my /Decode subpage (linked in my signature as "critiques").

I can't assess https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/business/grid-news-site-live.html (walled).
https://www.axios.com/2021/07/10/dc-journalists-launch-media-company is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/03/grid-news-the-messenger-startup is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, zero discussion of Bauman.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/30/tech-exec-invests-in-digital-news-startup-launched-by-veteran-journalists.html is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman; everything seemingly about him is actually claims about the startup attributed to Bauman.
https://digiday.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/07/DIGIDAY-MEDIA-AWARDS_Winners-Guide-2023_062923-2.pdf is a non-sequitur.
I can't assess https://www.adweek.com/media/laura-mcgann-has-reimagined-reporting-using-an-intersectional-structurally-focused-approach/ (walled). Given the article is about someone else, I can't imagine this is too useful for an article on Bauman.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181001-is-this-the-last-chance-to-see-the-titanic is useless for notability (too sparse, possibly wrong subject). Shit He Says, no actual discussion of Bauman. I should note that my own search for sources (string: "Mark Bauman") returned primarily non-responsive content, so I would be very concerned about conflating multiple Mark Baumans.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190519214223/https://www.virtualwonders.com/ is useless for notability (website homepage).
https://thinkwellgroup.com/blog/2020/08/21/exploring-the-details-with-virtual-wonders/ is useless for notability (too sparse). No discussion of Bauman.
https://wyse.gmu.edu/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I note this bio omits anything involving GRID or any media startups; one would think, given their journalism pedigree is mentioned, that these would be brought up.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/speaker/mark-bauman is useless for notability (connexion to subject). The image on this page looks like a completely different guy from the WYSE image, disregarding the glasses.
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ng-live-engineering-exploration-technology/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-17-ca-cinefile17_-story.html is useless for notability (too sparse). Shit He Says, no discussion of Bauman.
https://www.documentary.org/column/festival-focus-national-geographic-all-roads-film-festival is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop.
We don't cite IMDb (no editorial oversight).
https://www.media.mit.edu/events/media-lab-conversations-series-mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Event programme.
https://www.darwinfoundation.org/en/about/our-people2/board-of-directors/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). He's on the BoD for the Darwin Foundation.
https://www.asoc.org/about/our-team/#board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Again, BoD.
https://conservefish.org/news/marine-fish-conservation-network-welcomes-tom-sadler-new-deputy-director-mark-bauman-board-directors-member/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject, no editorial oversight). Press release from an organisation he was joining.
https://voicesforbiodiversity.org/about/advisory-board is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
We can't use https://wyse.gmu.edu/ (website homepage).
https://mediaschool.indiana.edu/news-events/news/item.html?n=media-school-visiting-professors-include-award-winning-media-executive-and-npr-tv-critic is useless for notability (connexion to subject). News from a university who's bringing him on as a guest professor.
https://www.cmu.edu/homepage/creativity/2010/fall/gigapixel-show.shtml is useless for notability (too sparse, connexion to subject). Name-drop in an article about an event CMU is holding.
We can't use either YouTube source (unknown provenance). YouTube videos must be (1) produced by an outlet we would consider to be a reliable source and (2) uploaded to that outlet's verified channel to be linked to, let alone cited.
https://thepearsoninstitute.org/globalforum2022 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Expo held by an organisation he's on the BoD of, and where he was scheduled to speak.
We can't use https://www.erskine.edu/2023/02/07/stukes-lecture-set-for-march-1/ (unknown provenance). No byline; who wrote this? (If this is a press release, it's useless for notability (no editorial oversight).)
https://www.iinteract.org/about-us is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.
https://www.wliw.org/about/awards/ is a non-sequitur.
https://crossingborders.education/people/mark-bauman/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Advisory board listing.

None of the sources I can assess are any good. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Journalism, Environment, Russia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's a link for the NY Times article, it isn't about the person discussed here, mostly about the Grid website [14] Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - coverage is from primary sources, IMDB or passing mentions. Hkkingg (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already made many edits based on reviews and thought it was ready for mainspace. Can someone please help me redraft this article to meet Wikipedia standards? Terry Phillips (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you find much better sources, any effort at redrafting would be futile. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-Bauman news/scholarly sources that discuss him at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subjected to rigourous editorial oversight and fact-checking. Without those, the subject cannot hope to meet WP:N or WP:BLP. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to have the SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed nuclear bombing of Córdoba[edit]

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

Non-notable conspiracy theory presented as fact. Note that article was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, which has a long history of propaganda and fabrication in Falklands-related topics. Kahastok talk 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, History, Military, United Kingdom, and Argentina. Skynxnex (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having tried to fix this, yes this seems a nothing story, based on dodgy sources, and or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources. An alleged piece in the New Statesman which is not used as a source. A claim from a Psychoanalyst. A mysterious letter. Certainly extraordinary sources - so extraordinary that they are incredible. Somewhere I read it was a proposed bombing of Buenos Aires, but that's not in Cordoba province. Cobbling together the British admission that some ships sailed with nuclear weapons but surely these are nuclear depth charges not air launched bombs. I suspect it's all pure fantasy but regardless it should be deleted due to lack of reliable sources Lyndaship (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. The 31 nuclear weapons were WE.177 nuclear depth charges. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as it stands, neutral about whether sources exist for a better one. Sorry for length, I want to be thorough here. This is a mess. A bunch of this is distraction linking. Stuff about nuclear depth charges and the like, that has nothing to do with the core claim: that the British put a Polaris sub with actual nuclear missiles off Ascension Island just in case they decided to nuke Córdoba (the city, not just the province). The 2005 Guardian article can also probably be discarded. It's just reporting on claims from Ali Magoudi's book and there's no reason to give him any weight; for one thing, he claims the British wanted to nuke Buenos Aries, which is a different city entirely. But are there sources such that the core claim -- or, at least, the core theory -- rises to notability? Well, I think this New York Times is just repeating quotes from The New Statesman (the El Pais article currently cited does the same thing, but worse). Full disclosure: I don't have a copy of the original New Statesman article. Regardless, at some point, someone did get Terence Lewin and Henry Leach to call it total nonsense, so that's a cut above most conspiracy theories. This bylined UPI article has a little more context, including that Tam Dalyell made such claims before the New Statesman and that Labour had demanded an independent investigation (which, if it happened, no one reported on; political parties everywhere demand investigations into everything all the time). After all that died down, Paul Rogers revived the allegations. You can read the draft version of Rogers' article here (if you turn your head sideways), but as far as I can tell, the only published version was in Lobster and that's not gonna do as a source. Finally, this white paper from the RAND/UCLA Center for the Study of Soviet International Behavior spends a couple of pages (pp. 9–11) on it all, including the New Statesman article and Rogers's take, eventually concluding that the whole thing is totally implausible and unsupported by evidence. That's pretty thin gruel, but it miiiiight support a brief article outlining the allegation and the conclusion that, no, no one actually told a sub commander to get into position to drop a nuke on Argentina. But I don't think it would be at this name, and I don't think what we've got here is worth trying to salvage into that. Lubal (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's content is totally wrong-headed, and seems a conspiracy theory type article. As noted in the British official history, a number of nuclear depth charges were on board ships rushed to the South Atlantic for the Falklands War. This was part of their standard armament during the Cold War, and they were removed during the war. This has all long been public, but this article presents it as a great secret. As noted by Lubal the allegations that the British Government separately considered a nuclear attack on mainland Argentina might be worth an article, but would need to be reworked from the ground up. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax or fanciful as well as in line with other reasons give above. Donner60 (talk) 04:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just spent my Saturday quickly developing an article what I think is a vastly better article on this topic, which is at British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or turn into redirect to Nick-D's new article. My initial reaction was 'conspiracy theory' as I wasn't familiar with the detail and I'm probably susceptible to arguments (per proposer) that the Spanish Wikipedia is unreliable. However, having read through Nick-D's alternative, I can see there's some substance: a political debate, operational challenges, Cold War propaganda which we can't dismiss. Nick's version is, indeed, vastly better, so let's redirect to that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War#Allegations which deals with this exact subject in a much better way. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR I find it difficult to see a case to redirect, because I don't think this is a plausible search term in its own right, and because the article is only six days old so there is unlikely to be any significant issue with link rot. Kahastok talk 09:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HV 888[edit]

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

No significant coverage in literature and only exists on the basis of being a star with an extremely large radius. Does not meet WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: the star "HV 888" is mentioned in several studies of the LMC, although I don't think it satisfies the criteria for significant coverge. A redirect to List of largest stars should suffice for now. Praemonitus (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of largest known stars. This is one of the many articles created on the basis of a very large stellar radius, without concerning if they would meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars as ((R to list entry)): the star is currently not notable per WP:GNG/WP:NASTRO but is mentioned in the appropriate list. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎

Will Carl Rufus[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:ACAD. Only thing that comes close to WP:GNG is a obituary in Popular Astronomy from 1948. nf utvol (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Discovery of book reviews make sufficient case for WP:AUTHOR and papers published brings bare minimum for WP:NPROF, especially considering pre-internet era.nf utvol (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Astronomy, Canada, and Michigan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As well as the two obituaries already listed in the article, I added six reviews of two books, making a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because one is an edited volume). I think for an academic of his pre-internet time, that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above, and NASA ADS shows he has a fairly extensive list of papers published (~72), in most cases as sole author. Praemonitus (talk) 23:50, 25 May 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 and redirect‎ to Baalveer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baalveer 3[edit]

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

The series might be notable but not the seasons. None of the seasons is found passing WP:GNG. At present, Ref 1 is about the actor (Dev Joshi), Ref 2 covers trivial, Ref 3 redirects to Mid-Day about actors, Ref 4 is announcement and interview, Ref 5 is interview, Ref 6 is same as 5, Ref 7 press release, Ref 8 is interview about the actors. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Redirect to the 1st season/Main article. If the series/1st season is notable, let's consider this a detailed article about one of the 4 seasons of a notable production. Would thus seem acceptable to me, cf. WP:SIZESPLIT. Coverage is not great but is abundant (a lot of Tellychakkar or Zoom TV articles) or things like: https://www.fridayrelease.com/tv-news-adda/baalveer-season-3-here-are-the-top-5-reasons-to-watch-this-enthralling-sony-sab-show ; it allows verification, though. (Season 4 just started and was also taken to Afd).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tellychakkar is not a reliable source as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. The ZoomTv and Fridayrelease are similar level sites to Tellychakkar or Bollywoodlife, these sources are looking unreliable to me and can’t establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, sure; if size is not an issue, redirect and merge it then.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources was found. The series can be notable, but we should not create articles for every season unless there is multiple in-depth coverage from secondary sources, excluding interviews. The article also fails to meet WP:GNG and is similar to the article Baalveer 4. GrabUp - Talk 18:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources do not have the quality and depth of coverage needed to warrant a page on this show. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added multiple refs so it can pass notability. M S Hassan (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked every source that you added. It includes The Times of India, which can’t establish notability, known for its promitional content per WP:TOI. It includes a video from Times Nowthat also can’t establish notability. It includes an ABP Hindi source, which is an interview-type article, just the sayings of the actor Dev, with no in-depth coverage of season 3. Other sources are ZoomTV, which are similar to sources like Tellychakkar or Bollywoodlife. I don’t think these are reliable and can establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 02:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources not only about Dev Joshi but also about other cast. M S Hassan (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That really don’t make this season notable. GrabUp - Talk 16:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guzema Fine Jewelry[edit]

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

The article cites trade publications and a Forbes contributor article. Some of the sources are about the person for interviews. I think this article is promotional and we need to demonstrate that it is notable per WP:NCORP. A G11 by a previous reviewer was declined so I will leave this for the community to decide. Lightburst (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Ukraine. Lightburst (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good reliable sources and significant coverage in Elle, Vogue and local magazines and news papers. Added some sources --Assirian cat (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vogue: The First Lady of Ukraine Dressed With Pride to Meet President Biden passing mention].

Elle Elle Style Awards 2017: winners and party passing mention

We have a few routine announcements and interviews or interest articles about the Ukrainian owner.like this and articles about the founder but I do not think we get to the kind of RS needed for a notable company.

V$ Bloggy looking site with no editorial overbite that I can see.

I am happy to withdraw if I am wrong. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP, nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. // Timothy :: talk 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Forbes article is by a contributor but I see no evidence that the article is not independent. The National Jeweler and the mentions in articles in the New York Times should suffice as English language sources. Since I cannot read the Ukrainian source I am taking on faith that those are substantial. Lamona (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lamona: Forbes contributor articles are red-lined on perennial reliable sources WP:FORBESCON. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the mentioned references I’m adding the following good sources with significant independent coverage. Here is a good long read in KyivPost [15], a Space Magazine publication representing the jewellery industry showed the company in depth here pages 61-63 [16]. Also, here is a success story in the local top newspaper and TV channel ICTV [17] and here is an in-depth coverage from the other local newspaper [18] while here is the in-depth coverage from a business-oriented and highly reliable in Ukraine AIN.ua news site [19]. Here is also a good coverage from Vogue in English [20]. Also I’ve found a significant coverage in Polish version of Glamour [21]. Also worth mentioning is Vogue Singapore [22] and L’officiel Mexico [23] --Riva Pola97 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In addition, the topic of this article is the company - references that focus on a product (reviews, mentions, etc) or interview a company exec (e.g. a puff profile) do not establish notability (unless the reference goes on to provide in-depth Independent Content about the company- which they never do). For example, this in Kyiv Post is a puff profile on the founder based entirely on information provided by the founder and containing no in-depth information on the company - fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or this in cn.ua mentions the company briefly in passing and contains no in-depth Independent Content about the company, also failing CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Or similarly this in Vogue, same reasons as above. If Valeryi is notable in her own right, then write an article about her, but these references do not establish notability of the company and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On2Cook[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Funding announcements are ORGTRIV, interviews fail ORGIND. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Technology, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This company was a contestant on Shark Tank India and this is what most sources cover on the page and this does not make an organization notable merely because a notable event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns or generates notable subsidiaries. The organization needs to be discussed in reliable independent sources to be considered notable. Fails WP:NCORP and fails WP:ORGCRIT. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. I believe it should not be removed. This company is very reputed and has won awards like Forbes DGEMS 2023, Best Emerging Food Tech of the Year, FCICS Indian Awards- South India Edition 2023, IF Design Award (2021) and many more. 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin - this is a "new" editor, creates an account, does some gnomish edits to establish activity (but well able to handle a complex citation and banners to their Talk page which is typical behaviour of the meat/sock puppets we encounter all the time), and within an hour of creating the new account, pops over to this AfD to !vote and then disappears again. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references come close to meeting GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margot Davy[edit]

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

Subject doesn’t seem to pass WP:GNG. Does appearing on notable fashion platform calls for a Wikipedia page? Because we have so many people appearing on notable fashion platform but no independent reliable sources. Most of the source on the page just only talked about her appearing and nothing more. Meligirl5 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Fashion. Meligirl5 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also this seems to be like a promotional work, paid work or a conflict of interest.--Meligirl5 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried a search in .fr sites, and even then, we have only a few photo shoots that come up. "Muse of the Month" [24] is about the extent of coverage I could find, it's simply a photospread and some small text. Delete for not meeting notability requirements and a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Bartlett (racing driver)[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated. I find a couple of passing references to Bartlett in reliable sources, but nothing substantial. See discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though WSCC and IMSA are not explicitly listed in WP:NMOTORSPORT they are "significant international motorsport series" (as mentioned in the second bullet point). NuIotaChi (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Motorsport, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage about being jailed: [25]. Also [26]. Feels like there should be more coverage... BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone (Redacted). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@77.101.199.59: Hi John. Do you know whether you have been covered in-depth in independent sources? E.g. stories focusing about you in newspapers, racing magazines, etc.? If so, let us know and that could be able to rescue the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there will be lots of stuff but I'd have to search through boxes and I'm about to leave tomorrow for Birmingham for a protest outside the offices of the CCRC on Friday (we're hoping it might hit the headlines)!

I do remember putting a Post of a German magazine on my Facebook page a few years ago (probably 2014/15) that did a feature of some sort about me but I have no idea what it said, as it was all in German, but it did have various photos of my Team. I have enough trouble with english as I'm very dyslexic!

I will defiantly have Le Mans year books for 84/85/86/87 (the years we ran) but I'll have to find them, probably in the roof!

I do know Penthouse Magazine (who were sponsoring us that year) ran a full a 2 page article on us in 1987. I suspect it was published in the July or Aug edition, as Le Mans would have been June. I'll see if I can at least find the German article for a start but it probably won't be until I get back. Thanks, John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been "definitely", not defiantly!!!

Anyway, I've found it, but still no idea what it says. It was 'RTL GP magazine' and I put it on my facebook page on 3rd Feb 2015. On the front cover it mentions Features on Lamborghini, De Tomaso and Bardon, a car we ran in 85/86/87 in WSPC. The Bardon was the Group C car I developed in 1996. The name was a mix of BAR (me) and DON (Robin Donovan). Robin was one of my regular co-drivers and is listed on Wikipedia.

I have just re posted the magazine on my Facebook page as a memory.

Hope this helps but I'm going to be away until next week now (longer if I'm arrested)!

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the message below to BeanieFan11 last night but I don't know if you also got to see that message? I will now be away until next week but I have added my direct contact info below. John

My name is John Bartlett (the John Bartlett you are discussing). I have just been alerted to this situation. I'm not very internet savvy so not sure if I'm supposed to even comment but have been directed to this discussion.

Having now viewed the various comments here I thought I should perhaps point out that my actual blog/website already has my medical history published (including the MRI scans somebody mentioned, which in fact have my name on the top of the scan, albeit very small). The MRI scan on my website site is bigger so it's easier to see my name.

Re the other "John Bartlett" someone referred to as owning a US hockey team (I think). That person bears no relation to me, so is clearly a different John Bartlett! I therefore have no idea if what is being said about him owning a hockey team in the US is correct or not.

I spent most of my racing career in the world sports car championship/world endurance championship, generally considered (at the time) to be one tier below F1. My blog also has a lot of my career facts/history/documents etc. Most of my former racing history is in paper form in book/reference books (such as the various Official Le Mans Yearbooks) etc.

As to the person questioning something about my company, Maidstone Scuba, if you look at the 'Meet our team of PADI instructors' on the website, you'll see I am still the Director of Maidstone Scuba School, althow I have just seen that I am shown as being 61, which is incorrect.

Because what happened to me back in 1993/4, I have always freely publish (albeit with helpers) everything. Therefore everything mentioned about me is already in the public domain and therefore their is no breach of any copyright.

I'm now almost 70, and anything internet is usually handled for me by various very kind 'helpers'.

I'm not a lot of good at any of this internet stuff but can be contacted by old-fashioned phone ([REDACTED]). I attempted to add my email address but it wont allow me to do that! Their is a messaging system on Maidstone Scuba so you can contact me on that if needed. if I can assist any further.

John 77.101.199.59 (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read your message. I'll see if I look into the German article / Facebook post soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To closer: request relisting to allow for more time to research. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Beanie's request, and as there is currently no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at WP:Requests_for_undeletion#John_Bartlett_(racing_driver).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - propose closure of this AfD so that the normal BLP process can continue elsewhere on the talkpage and WP:BLPN per WP:BIOSELF JMWt (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've posted some potential sources on the article talk page. Porterjoh (talk) 15:17, 24 May 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.

Semmalar Annam[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A quick Google search reveals that this actress may or may not be notable. It is clear that she has no large roles post 2021. Most of her sources are about her role in Ammani which from the way it is credited looks like a supporting/minor role. Not sure how much screen time, she had but it can be considered a level below supporting and above minor.

Her actual supporting/lead roles are in Maadathy and Mmmmm while she had a lead role in Sennai (no article). The roles that she likes to take up are village/dalit roles and the confirmation of her roles can show her notability. She also played a supporting role in Vadham. While her speaking out against the casting couch against dark skinned actresses is laudable, it is also the reason why she could fail WP:NACTOR. She stars in several other commercial films however in very minor roles. Her role in Kalvan lasted a few seconds (no dialogue) and hence original research as many of her roles may be. Other roles that seem minor include "Housewife in Prabhavathy's documentary", "Mother of kidnapped child", "Kid's mother", "Einar clan member" (likely no dialogues), "Cancer-affected girl's mother" and "District Forest Officer".

She is credited second in Thunikaram but the reviewer mentions how [27] Though Semmalar Annam doesn't have much scope to perform, she does a decent job in the given time Her name is not mentioned in the review of Kattumaram and there are no sources for The Tremor. Since the other roles don't add any notability and the fact that she directs short films not feature films, consider the films/series Ammani, Vadham, Sennai, Mmmmm (role name?), and Thunikaram and if her roles are notable or not (main guideline for WP:NACTOR).

Her role in Maadathy is definitely notable: she played the lead character's mother. Semmarlar Annam in a yet another remarkable performance. How long will the mainstream filmmakers ignore her? [28] Sadly, Mmmm has no reviews and Sennai is reviewed by Film Companion (blacklisted) [29] but barely mentions much of her role. A creation of the article Sennai can help her notability [30]. Does Mmmm being sent to Oscars add notability? [31] His role seems more notable (because it's the lead). Vijayan plays a beekeeper while she plays his wife [32]. Her role could be supporting.

Her ommision from mainstream Tamil cinema affects notability greatly as 90% of her films are from there. Her roles were notably removed by editors in Valimai and Bachelor (2021 film) [33] [34], showing how short her roles can be.

Notable roles: (based on screen time)

Year	Film	Role
2019	Maadathy	third to Ajmina Kassim
2021	Sennai	Lead (no article)
2021	Mmmmm	second to I. M. Vijayan

Supporting roles:

Year	Film	Role	Notes
2016	Ammani	credited seventh	subject of multiple sources after the release of the film and none in reviews of the film
2021	Vadham	credited third
2022	Thunikaram	credited second	Despite being credited second, her screen time is less.

None of her other roles are being considered for notability. DareshMohan (talk) 19:12, 24 May 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 May 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: DareshMohan (I think you forgot to sign), when we talked earlier, I had completely missed the roles in Maadathy, Vadham, Mmmmm and Thunikaram among other things!!! Stupid me. I focused on Sennai. Sorry. She does seem to meet WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions. Added to minor awards and some coverage (although containing mostly interviews), I was wrong to consider she didn't meet the requirements for actors, I think. Apologies if I made you do all this awesome work. I sincerely apologise for having missed those roles.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Tamil Nadu. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close discussion. I am the nominator. An error occurred at User talk:Mushy Yank#Semmalar Annam where I was hereby motivated to do a redirect via deletion discussion. I had mentioned Maadathy and Mmmmm but at the same time that Mushy Yank edited resulting in an edit conflict. @Mushy Yank: As a compromise, can we make the article neutral, add sources to filmography and expand career section. DareshMohan (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Will do my best! (consider signing the 1st part of this Afd, btw, so that we can see you are indeed the nominator:D). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HEY and WP:SNOW. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable work and achievement and enough coverage on the actress who has made prolific contributions to a field of entertainment. Passes WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ speedy keep, linked from Main Page, WP:SK #6. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Downard-Wilke[edit]

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

After careful analysis of the seemingly extensive sources, my judgement is Downard-Wilke does not meet our notability guidelines for people. The article cites 51 sources, so please bear with me – a full explanation will necessarily take some time.

Some important context: Downard-Wilke is Schwede66 (talk · contribs), who sits on Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand's management committee and is a Wikipedia administrator. The main contributors to the article have been the New Zealand Wikipedians Wainuiomartian (talk · contribs) and Marshelec (talk · contribs). Given Marshelec apparently sits on the same Wikimedia NZ management committee as Schwede66, there appears to be some problematic conflict-of-interest editing going on here. I am in the process of opening a COIN thread which I will link when finished.

Now let's get onto the sources. I uncontroversially rule out the following sources for independence concerns. By uncontroversial, I mean something like "Downard-Wilke wrote the source", "The source is Downard-Wilke's company", or "Downard-Wilke was on this organisation's committee at the time":

1, 4, 5, 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37, 39, 51.

This knocks out 21 of the 51 sources. To put it another way, about 40% of this article’s sources are obviously and uncontroversially not independent.

I uncontroversially rule out the following sources as not mentioning Downward-Wilke at all:

16, 20, 23, 24

I also uncontroversially rule out source 7 (raw election results, obviously not significant) and 45 (Wikipedia discussion, user-generated). That is all the sources I believe can be uncontroversially eliminated.

I rule out the following sources as cases where Downard-Wilke merely acts as a spokesperson providing brief comment and receives no significant coverage himself:

9, 29, 38, 40, 42, 44, 48, 49, 50 plus 10, 32, 41 (on ProQuest, ask me for the full text)

I rule out sources 35 and 36 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) and sources 46 and 47 for the same reason, but I wanted to note these separately because they give slightly more extensive coverage.

I rule out source 2 as a "man-on-the-street" type of interview, where Downard-Wilke is interviewed by a German paper because he is someone with a German background who experienced the Christchurch earthquake. This sort of coverage does not indicate the interviewee is significant.

I rule out source 3 as the type of interview that is considered non-independent (see the essay Wikipedia:Interviews). There is not enough independent content beyond Downard-Wilke’s answers to the questions.

I could only partially verify source 6, finding a NZ Library record. However, given the context of the source (a local paper covering Downard-Wilke running for a regional council election where even winning candidates don’t have articles unless they have some sort of national political career), it’s unlikely it contributes to notability.

I rule out source 12 (ProQuest, ask me for full text) as covering a case where Downard-Wilke received an award from an organisation while he was on their executive committee. Not sufficiently independent.

I rule out Boulter 2020 (cites 13 and 21) because the document notes itself to be a draft copy. I have other concerns, but drafts are at the very least unreliable.

I was unable to verify source 25, which provides extremely little bibliographical information. However, judging by the type and brevity of the information it is cited as supporting (the fact Downard-Wilke won a local German bike race), we have good reason to think this is not the sort of source that would deliver significant coverage.

Source 43, a Stuff article, initially looked promising to me, but judging by the link at the bottom, it appears to have been written to promote this edit-a-thon which was explicitly geared towards improving coverage on Stuff. Downard-Wilke seems to have played some part in organising the meet-up. Not sufficiently independent.

I could not find any promising sources that weren't already in the article, so I conclude the article fails NBIO. I appreciate you reading this through to the end and I hope you can appreciate it is difficult to strike a balance between comprehensive discussion and brevity when you are dealing with 51 sources. – Teratix ₵ 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Cycling, Transportation, Germany, and New Zealand. – Teratix ₵ 07:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prob keep - I see that the OP has put a lot of work in the nom, but when it boils down to it, there is media coverage of the subject for at least two different reasons: cycling advocacy and wiki work. I appreciate that some think that interviews count for little, but in my opinion an interview shows that the subject is worth interviewing and is notable. For me, refs 2 and 8 are sufficient to meet the GNG and whilst there is some puffery, I'm not convinced this is a fight worth having. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree with everything JMWt has stated above on this matter. Viatori (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTYJ-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Idaho. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a ton of coverage in two newspapers (the Idaho edition of The Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d'Alene Press) for the 1994–1997 period. The station had a very bumpy early history that included an illegal transfer of control, Seattle Mariners baseball games, and a bankruptcy filing, even though it drops off the radar hard after becoming KTYJ. Reasonable WP:BEFORE in Newspapers.com would have avoided this outcome. And if Newspapers.com lacks the city you need, given that we are dealing with LPTVs, ask me and there may be coverage in NewsBank. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Sammi Brie's rewrite of the article with sources. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 18:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been improved with content referenced to multiple reliable sources that together show a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wael William Diab[edit]

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

BLP with no evidence of notability. Existing references are to:

1/3/7: primary source bios
2: a list of WP:PATENTS, which does not contribute to notability.
4: a press release
5/8/9: WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in non-independent sources
6: self-authored material

WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any significant coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42: It is verifiable that he chairs the organisation. The article doesn't WP:GNG and so, redirect since he won am award that was unverifiable but I a certain it should be. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I'm OK with that AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helmuth Ehrhardt[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. It is difficult to WP:V the information currently on the page or whether this is the same person that several sources name as involved directly in Nazi crimes. Currently my thought is that this page should be WP:TNT until someone can do a better job of it, but I would be interested if others can find good sources to offer against the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Germany. JMWt (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Institute of Teacher Education Nawabshah[edit]

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maternity And Child Health Care Institute Benazirabad[edit]

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taluka Hospital Sakrand[edit]

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Medicine Oncology & Radiotherapy Institute Nawabshah[edit]

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Forest[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing refs to consider but perhaps they exist in languages I can't read. JMWt (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway and Sweden. JMWt (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is just an old mis-translation. Eidskog (described in this article as a town near there) translates roughly as "Ed Forest". Google just returns people of this name, and ChatGPT refers to the "Eidskog forest" in the area instead. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found what seems like a relevant reference: an article in Svensk geografisk årsbok from 1951 [35] (not available digitally). I found a web page that discusses thar article, which confirms that it's the right forest [36]. Andejons (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I can't get that to load but I'm going to assume good faith. As you can see it, would you think it meets the criteria of substantial coverage in a RS? JMWt (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have a 15-page article devoted to it published in a scholarly annual. I'm not sure if that is usually seen as enough for notability. Andejons (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I don't usually consider references that nobody has read, but that does sound quite long JMWt (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

East African School of Media Studies[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing sources to WP:V basic details, whether it is a degree awarding institution etc. Possibly sources exist that I'm not seeing but currently per WP:V claims can be removed. JMWt (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kenya. JMWt (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haplotype 35[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2011, notability unclear. jengod (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. Most articles about individual haplotypes deal with a name that begins with a letter rather than a digit, so this might not be the current terminology. I wonder whether this should be merged into Haplogroup R1b. Haplogroup 21 is a redirect to Haplogroup E-M215, for example. I will post a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics asking for expert help. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This numbering system isn't used anymore, and it's hard to work out what the exact modern equivalents are because there have been several rounds of renumbering as our grasp of human genetics has improved. There's certainly no reliable source that provides a convenient lookup chart! In any case, determining whether Ht35 is equivalent to R1b-Z2103 or just to R1b-L23* is way past my pay grade, but that's fine, because we don't dice the haplogroups up that finely for articles. The appropriate merge/redirect target is Haplogroup R-M269. I'd like to advocate for a merge instead of a redirect, but that target article is a mess and I have no idea how you'd merge cleanly. Lubal (talk) 00:49, 25 May 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZTC-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 17 May 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!} 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill local TV station, notable only on a local level. TH1980 (talk) 01:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSDY-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another run-of-the-mill local TV station, also notable only on a local level. TH1980 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Magick[edit]

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

Found no signs of notability (some notable publications covered the announcement/lead single but it's not exactly NMUSIC#1 level) and redirected. That's been undone, so now we're here. Got a response on my talk page including "That's an actual published album by a known rock band that has been producing albums for decades"; just wanna emphasize NOTINHERITED here in case they or anyone else is thinking of bringing that up. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Louis Post Dispatch wrote that it was “finally” available, meaning it was anticipated and notable. Repeating that several notable publications did write about it as well.

This group has released several singles that don’t need their own pages, several live albums that don’t need their own page. However, this album was released on various media and noted in the press. This is a notable article, and sits alongside other albums in their discography, for informational and educational purposes.

I would like to note that people come to Wikipedia to find information, and undoubtedly will look for this album’s information. Deleting the page does not serve users’ interests at all. Louie Mantia (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or "finally" just means "after a long time", and it has been a decade since their last album. And even if that were a good sign for notability, the piece is mostly an interview in which the writer only really says the same things about the album that the announcements cover, including the 93x "article" which is stated at the bottom as a press release from Frankly Media. The Riff review is good, but it's still not enough, and I know there's nothing else because I already looked and saw all of what you've added but that was it, hence why I redirected in the first place.

I already brought up NOTINHERITED because it was clearly necessary to mention, but I didn't realize I would need to point out multiple other sections of that page as well, namely WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, and WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING which pretty much all came up in your case just now. And if users are "undoubtedly" looking for this info, it can always be added to the band's page where I sent the redirect and readers will find it there just fine and be satisfied. I'll even support that as a merge argument if you're on board for it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this article was nominated for deletion was there were “no signs of notability.”

After that, it was immediately noted by you (QuietHere) that there were some notable publications. There is also at least one notable review, from Riff Magazine. I think we can safely say that “no signs of notability” is an inaccurate assessment. An argument can be made that there are “few” (by what measure?), but I think “none” would be too far.

I think these few sources specifically address the requirement to prove it is notable, but as @Oaktree b also pointed out, it may be too soon, as the album was released only a week ago. It’s possible more will come up, but as of this moment, it does seem to me that there are valid, suitable sources already cited in the article.

Entirely separate from my argument and unrelated to the bit about deletion, I am a bit hurt by the condescending tone you’ve (QuietHere) brought to this, notably “in case they or anyone else is thinking of bringing that up” and “I didn't realize I would need to point out multiple other sections of that page as well,” both of which imply some level of superiority, which I think is just hurtful and not constructive for this discussion. I think your argument can be made without that. Louie Mantia (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Also found this in the Tennessean [37] which is an interview with the singer, but talks about the album. With the American Songwriter article, just barely enough. Is likely TOOSOON as the album was released on the 3rd of May, more might pop up. Oaktree b (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this Riff Magazine link [38], it's not listed as a RS in Wiki Project album, but it seems ok. Another interview where they also talk about the album. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more discussion and input from editors. But from what I'm reading here, deletion is off the table and we are trying to decide between Keeping a standalone article or a Redirect/Merge closure. Either way, the content would be preserved in case there are more reviews in the future.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Better Than Ezra. At the very least, this album a likely search by those who have an interest. The redirect can be page protected as needed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Fein[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG due to WP:SIGCOV such as [[39]] and [[40]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:37, 11 May 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, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Moderate success at lower levels but does not meet WP:GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get you. Which part of WP:GNG are you saying? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The first source provided above is quite good, especially if you go to C5, where it focuses much more on him. I lean towards discounting the second source above since it mostly talks about his former partner's retirement and him contemplating the same in very few words. It is also the same publication and not independent of source #1 above. However, from the sources in the article, the Skate Today piece seems to cover him specifically in depth. Those are enough to meet GNG vice NSKATE in my view. -2pou (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The article meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO based on the major awards he has won and was cited to reliable sources. For the nominator, WP:SNGs are followed after checking the WP:BASIC. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What “major awards” has this guy won? Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. Figure Skating Championships as well as collab..ING with Tiffany Scott. Finding sources first WP:BEFORE is also important. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98, this mentions and collabs this and this is at least there will be existing source. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That a PROD was removed doesn't make an article non notable. I see you nominated articles simply because they doesn't meet WP:NSKATE; this is a secondary/additional way after the article lacks valuable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:30, 30 May 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Hennessey[edit]

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

Lacking of citations and General Notability Bennyaha (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Canada. Bennyaha (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors is not automatically passed just because the article contains a list of roles sourced to IMDb or an IMDb-like directory — it requires passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about him and his work in media and/or books, of which there's absolutely none shown here. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator (before we hit this AFD's normal deadline): This is one of several artifacts from the time I focused on Care Bears content (as a fan back then; my kidvid interests have long since shifted). Hennessey was the voice of Brave Heart Lion, a Care Bear Cousin. ("Charge!")

As for viable sources, this starting point might not amount to enough, but this is the most in-depth writeup I could find. From here, it's up to the S.S. Cunard (talk · contribs) and others of interest to find a few more out there someplace.

Zekas, Rita (1990-06-03). "Dan Hennessey -- Care Bears". The Toronto Star Video & Home Entertainment. p. 19. Retrieved 2024-05-23 – via Newspapers.com.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 20:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2000 in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2000 in Kosovo[edit]

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

The article is talking about a country that did not exist yet. Not only does the leadership section list the president as the President of Serbia and Montenegro, but Kosovo only declared independence in 2008, so any [year] in Kosovo pages from before this time shouldn't exist either. At least it's not standard procedure, as for example there's not a 1775 in the United States article: since the United States, like Kosovo, had not declared independence as a nation yet, and was only fighting for it. These protests should instead be placed on the page 2000 in Serbia and Montenegro where they were officially taking place. Cheers! Johnson524 12:20, 9 May 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 May 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subnational entities have their own year pages (see 2024 in California). – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this article is very sparse. If not entirely deleted, I still see no reason it shouldn't be merged into the parent countries article. Johnson524 02:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom Johnson524 02:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnson524: I encourage you to strike this vote, as the discussion being created is considered a vote towards deletion by the nominator themselves, making this a duplicate vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Oops, thanks for letting me know, I haven't really done many AFDs before 😅 Johnson524 20:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the unrest and redirect to 2000 in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Geschichte (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - the article 2000 unrest in Kosovo discusses events in more detail, that might be a better target than 2000 in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. But a redirect to either is better than this stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forest, Washington[edit]

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

Reference 2 on the article itself is Meany's place names, and he says that Forest was a post office briefly located at Newaukum prairie. Please remember that post offices back then did not always use the same name as the place where they were, in alot a cases that place didn't exist.The fourth reference (jtenton) is a semi unreliable source that also says it was post office, and the sources used to make that claim are basically also the story of a post office, a school district, and election district named forest. It was also earlier a grange district. As you might imagine such things appear in newspapers but you want find any of those news papers that ever say it was a town. The remaining sources are of no use, and I haven't found anything further than those that actually give any substance on it. James.folsom (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Forgot this part, Washington State place names [41] couldn't be bothered to mention it and it was published in the '70s.James.folsom (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the explanations at the article's talk page, Talk:Forest, Washington. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see the Talk:Forest, Washington for my sourcing research. Forest, though never large, has existed as a community in some form or fashion since the late 1890s. Instead of deletion, we simply expand the article, fleshing out the details. I volunteer to do so. Shortiefourten (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shortiefourten's comment on the talk page. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) XabqEfdg (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Auburn Tigers football team[edit]

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

Does not seem to be independently notable. Suggest merging with Auburn tigers football. XabqEfdg (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 03:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very clear WP:SIGCOV which allows this article to meet GNG. The team went 13-0, they were undefeated in the highest level of college football and were ranked top 10 in the AP polls for over 10 weeks. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does need better sourcing, but this is so clearly a keep that the AfD is either mistaken or vexatious. SportingFlyer T·C 04:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to be vexatious, so sorry if it came off that way. I just couldn't find sources describing this particular year of the team in detail (as opposed to describing it at the time). I do not know whether there are particular criteria for this sort of topic though, so if I have missed something I apologize and will withdraw the AfD. XabqEfdg (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply clicking on the Sugar Bowl article would bring up multiple sources which cover the team's season. SportingFlyer T·C 05:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep, as others have noted the team was a ranked FBS team and clearly meets the WP:GNG. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. And still no discussion has followed. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devora Radeva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator nominated 49 of these in 30 minutes. No discussion has followed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Considered keep per WP:NEXIST but no one actually posted a keep !vote. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SKATER. --BoraVoro (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A WP:BEFORE came up with the following sources: [[42]][[43]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. More discussion was needed. This has already been relisted twice. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominika Polakowska[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia only contains one source that is a database and no significant coverage. My Google searches also come up with nothing else. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Hong Kong. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and Taiwan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches. JTtheOG (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insuffient coverage.--Wish for Good (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prob delete - I'm not seeing RS. It is possible they exist in languages I don't read but if that's the case I encourage !keep voters to bring sources to the discussion. JMWt (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DCsansei and JTtheOG. 58.152.55.172 (talk) 10:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Again, the nominator's rush to nominate dozens of articles in under half an hour failed to stimulate discussion about many of them, such as this one. It has already been relisted twice. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Anichenko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Azerbaijan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- She has participated in more than 3 Olympic [44] while presenting her country, She ought to be notable. Otbest (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The nominator's race to nominate dozens of articles within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion whatsoever about many of them, such as this instance. It has already been relisted twice. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Loup Bouquet[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myong Song-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Myong Song-chol that was elected to the parliament? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG and it doesn't seem possible to find out if the athlete has a relevant career in local politics. Svartner (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not enough international appears to make up for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Hye-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Nothing here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 03:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jin In-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know his Korean name? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea. Giant Snowman 19:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – As done in others similars AfD. Svartner (talk) 22:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Govvy (talk) 07:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anwegmann (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn I. Walker[edit]

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

No significant coverage. May be notable, but insufficient sources for an article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Donating money to a university and getting something named after you in return (the Marilyn I Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts at Brock University) is not cause for notability, unless it leads to in-depth independent coverage, and even then it would be only one event. I found one published review of her one book [45] calling it a failure in meeting the purpose of its title, and useless for scholarship, but maybe nice as a coffee table book. Negativity aside, one review of one book isn't enough for WP:AUTHOR.

Note: there is another person with a similar name who meets WP:PROF#C1; we have a separate article on her, Marilyn Walker. I found this discussion via the academics and educators deletion sorting list, but beyond her donation to a university Marilyn I. Walker does not appear to have been an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question - is this a case where a redirect is more appropriate? The Brock University article has a section on the Marilyn I. Walker School of Fine and Performing Arts. Almost all the coverage in newspapers.com talks about the building of the school. I imagine people will look up her name in that context, and a redirect to the section on the Brock University article would be useful. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't find independent secondary coverage about her. Contributor892z (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Because redirect was rejected, there is no consensus here and it has been relisted twice. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Anne Sacks[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Israel, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, and as such, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if any significant coverage can be found. Let'srun (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008 World Figure Skating Championships per ATD and CHEAP. Let'srun and Bgsu98, can you get behind this? gidonb (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be a WP:SURPRISE and as such I do not support. Let'srun (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Let'srun. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just me or are there a disproportionate amount of articles here about ice skaters? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger, the nominator PROD'd a lot of these articles, other editors thought it was rash and de-PROD'd them and now they have would up at AFD, all at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks for explaining. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. The nominator's burst of dozens of nominations within half an hour failed to stimulate any discussion about many of them. This one did get one weak keep at least, but that is not a full discussion and this has been relisted twice already. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Białas[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – Sources I got in my Google search may be related to significant coverage: 2010, January 2011, and December 2011. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable Market Workers Union[edit]

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

I looked for reliable sources and books but couldn't find anything. The article can be redirected. GrabUp - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Andhra Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who de-PROD'd this article suggested a redirect to All India Trade Union Congress. Is there a reason you came to AFD instead? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I thought this should be discussed at Afd before redirecting it there. I have no reason other than that; I myself don’t want to redirect it. I also thought, if someone disagrees with me after the redirect, then what am I going to do? So, I don’t want to bear any burden. GrabUp - Talk 04:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is also questionable because I too could not find any source that can prove the existence or even an affiliation with All India Trade Union Congress. RangersRus (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't verify that this exists at all, or if it has continued to exist for the 19 years since the article was created (almost in its current form), or if is affiliated with the All India Trade Union Congress, or who "Moulana" is. Neither Google nor Bing can find anything. Without a source, this should be deleted without a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some search and could come up with nothing reliable that could verify if this page could be warranted. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Again, this has been relisted twice without stimulating any discussion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Paoletti[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This has been relisted twice without stimulating any discussion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Pajardi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This has already been relisted twice without stimulating discussion beyond one !vote for procedural keep. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Novales[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Philippines. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches and 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Maksimova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, despite discussion regarding the nominator's related Akiko Kitamura AfD in the same week, no discussion has occurred yet on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Komosa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite discussion regarding the nominator's related Akiko Kitamura AfD in the same week, no discussion has occured yet on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevhen Kholoniuk[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgsu98, don't WP:NSKATE favour collaboration per criterion 3. I can reasonably see collaborations which yield winning a German Championship. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Chu-hong[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to provide rationale 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was an error; thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because this can’t scratch WP:NSKATE. She medaled at South Korea’s national championships, a senior-level event, though this is not international, and her international accomplishments did not earn her a medal. There is no WP:SIGCOV for her in this or another context unfortunately. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sun-bin (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale 104.232.119.107 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with the exact same rationale I presented at Lee Chu-hong’s. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Leska[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Maguire (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, and as such, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if significant coverage is found. Let'srun (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has a picture so that's an improvement but still lacking in WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, it's a Delete for me. 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandr Levintsov[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Poland, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Kropotina[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't see support for Deletion and a Soft Deletion is not possible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aneta Kowalska[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takuya Kondoh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a comment for Procedural Keep is not an argument to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one interview, but not enough sources to meet GNG. Fails WP:NSKATE. --Enos733 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, there is no corresponding article on ja.wiki. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failing WP:GNG 104.7.152.180 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hirokazu Kobayashi (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to find any sources that meet GNG. Fails WP:NSKATE. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. I'm categorically opposed to AfDs without a proper BEFORE, so I would argue for keep (while knowing this is not a !vote). While I also haven't done a extensive BEFORE search but was quickly able to find an interview with TV Tokyo [46] and a feature on him in J-Sport [47] in the Japanese article. DCsansei (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DCsansei is absolutely correct in demanding a proper review of potentially available sources before proceeding with a deletion nomination. However, the short window of time within which many similar nominations were submitted is most certainly not proof the required search was not made. I, for example, work as much as I find necessary to prepare a Wikipedia contribution. Sometimes, this involves multiple AfD's, and, when all are ready, I post them up in one go. -The Gnome (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of the serious dearth of sources testifying to our subject's notability. Routine listings by the International Skating Union or interviews simply do not do. -The Gnome (talk) 14:06, 29 May 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!} 04:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryland Adams[edit]

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

This subject is far from notable by Wikipedia’s standards. There is a major lack of significant coverage addressing the subject directly, and the ones that do mention the subject fall short of being reliable sources. Majority of the sources listed are the subjects own YouTube channel or to instagram posts, see WP:NOSOCIAL. The subject falls incredibly short of the standards that are in place by Wikipedia to establish notability, as being married to someone famous does not make someone notable. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the criteria set by Wikipedia to establish notability.

4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shane Dawson: Certainly some major publications with news articles on him (People, Business Insider, Cosmopolitan), but only in his relation to Shane Dawson. It is a highly likely search term that can be redirected and merged. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw some really prestigious articles but all mentioning the subject as the partner of Shane Dawson. I think a merge makes perfect sense in this case. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright for lack of notability-supporting sources. What do we have?

We have YouTube videos created by our subject such as this, this -"we're pregnant!-; more self-made content, as the jargon goes, such as this or that creation; Instagram postings, such as this, for god's sake; the impressive citing of a Hollywood Reporter article, which, alas, is about something else entirely and only name-drops our subject once; more bombastic deployments of the Hollywood Reporter imprimatur, such as this listing of awards, among whose myriad of names listed is indeed our subject; and so on. There is a lot of refreshingly clean air, but not much of the solid stuff required. -The Gnome (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Chernozubov[edit]

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

Clearly fails notability guidelines, no significant coverage. No reason for this article. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page on Russian Wikipedia seems to be more in-depth and has more sources. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 10:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no notability, and one "brief" biography isn't really enough to build an entire article.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He has a plaque dedicated to him, and streets namead after him, should be expanded with transation from Russian version F.Alexsandr (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to speak the language, I will be happy to withdraw the request if you can bring it up to snuff.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the one hand, there is no support for deletion. On the other hand, the keep argument is not strong. Let's hear some more thoughts on this before passing a verdict.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see multiple Google books refs in Russian. Mccapra (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We simply have no sources. "Mentions in books," which one sporadically will encounter, amounts to very little; significant references in independent, third-party texts are required. And the one live link found takes us to a privately curated website. The Russian lemma is no help, either: It only offers a typical "listing of generals by seniority."

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is a very messy AFD discussion, full of misplaced and unsupported accusations of nationalism and canvassing. We don't administer purity tests to see who can and cannot participate in any discussion on this project. This discussion's purpose is not to determine whether or not a Tamil genocide occurred and many of the editors arguing for Delete simply say that the subject doesn't exist. While the article might be poorly written, lack a NPOV or have an unacceptable article page title, those elements can be remedied through editing and improving the article. The only factor that matters here is not what the participant editors believe to be true but what reliable sources can verify. The first 2/3 of this discussion isn't very helpful at all in terms of determining a closure but in the latter 1/3 editors brought forward actual, accepted reliable sources that can verify that this subject, which might be in dispute, is indeed notable. That factor is, generally, what determines an AFD closure.

In fact, I think it might be appropriate for a section to be added to this article discussing the fact that the term itself is a matter of contention and conflict, outlining arguments for those deny that a genocide occurred. I think it would also be wise to start a talk page discussion on a possible article page title change since some editors' primary objection was to the identification of a genocide and they didn't focus on the article content and sourcing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil genocide[edit]

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Sri Lanka, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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

Article created by a rabid sock puppets abuser after admittedly copying content from War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War.[48]

Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide". The creation of this WP:POVFORK is a clear-cut misuse of Wikipedia as per WP:SOAP and WP:RGW.Ratnahastin (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced article which passes WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article may lack thorough sourcing, but discussions on recognising the Tamil genocide are taking place globally. For instance, the Canadian government, the Tamil Nadu government, the provincial government of Northern Province in Sri Lanka, and the Minister of Home Affairs of India have recognized the genocide. The preliminary work on the "Tamil genocide" page shall be enhanced to provide comprehensive and necessary information to Wikipedia readers. ALKBH5 (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — ALKBH5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. The page is currently fully protected (until 3 June) and only uncontroversial edits are allowed, which a deletion nominatin certainly is not. — kashmīrī ^TALK 03:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit to put notice on the main page was already requested. Some admin will eventually put it. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, deletion is not a non-controversial edit. Secondly, and more importantly, deletion discussion in principle aims at identifying problems with the given article, and editors usually work to fix them as the discussion develops. Unless it's a case of WP:TNT, editors are unable to address problems when full protection is in place. (Granted, it wasn't possible to work on this particular article anyway because of WP:TAGTEAM). — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: The AfD nomination was already added to the main article hours ago.[49] You should strike your !vote now. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection does not allow improvement, so my rationale stands. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fully protected until 21:01 on 30 May 2024 UTC, not 3 June. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The claim about copied content by a sock puppet is no longer valid as the article has since been significantly edited and altered by other users and enough reliable sources have been provided to justify its existence. So the claim that "nobody" recognizes Tamil genocide is clearly false and not a conclusion that can be reached by a person who has fully read the entire article or crosschecked the cited sources in the lede itself. It's a work in progress and more improvements can be made, which was what I was trying to do before users started revert warring and got the page protected. May I also remind the admins that there have been two proposals in the past for its merger and rename, both of which were opposed by most users. Furthermore, there is a place in Wikipedia for "genocides" that do not have universal nor official UN recognition, such as Bangladesh genocide, Black genocide in the United States, Guatemalan genocide and East Timor genocide. In any case, complete deletion cannot be justified.---Petextrodon (talk) 04:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear admins: In every May marking Tamil genocide remembrance, there's a spike in interest in this topic mostly from Sri Lankans. So I'm not surprised by their participation here. What's intriguing is the large number of users with no significant prior editing in Sri Lankan topic (but with a history of mostly editing Indian topic, including canvassing each other there) are all suddenly taking the same stance. Not one dissent. Even their wording is similar in that they are all absolutely sure no genocide took place and that no one recognizes it. Admins need to look into potential off-Wiki coordination.---Petextrodon (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note to admins: There are several users who have cast their vote to keep (1)(2)(3) but in the wrong sections, possibly due to their inexperience.---Petextrodon (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If we go through the contribution history of this article, it seems to me that these users User:Oz346, User:Petextrodon, User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya, User:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards are working as a group to keep their point of view in the article. I have come across these same editors in other Sri lanka civil war related Wikipedia articles as well. Also, what I have noticed is that whenever there is a discussion going on related to a Sri lankan civil war topic, they collectively come and cast the vote that favors them so that the majority is always favored. It should be also noted that three of the users I have mentioned here User:Okiloma, User:Beastmastah, User:Omegapapaya have been blocked from editing for reasons such as using multiple accounts. If we look at the profiles who voted in oppose to this rename, they seem not to be neutral editors if we go through their contribution history.Futhermore, Tamil genocide has not been recognized by the UN or any other famous Human Rights Organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty. There is a need for independent neutral Wikipedia contributors to look into this issue and provide a solution. I believe this article should be deleted or at least renamed to "Tamil Genocide Allegation". I hope my observations will be useful for Admins when coming up with a decision. JohnWiki159 (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a baseless personal attack. Just because many editors have common interests in pages, does not mean they are all working together. In fact, if you look at the edit history on this article, User:Beastmastah used his sock to make edits [50] which I had publicly opposed on his talk page: User talk:Omegapapaya. Also in previous votes, many uninvolved editors also voted for similar conclusions (you are not an uninvolved editor but have a pro-Sri Lanka edit history and coincidentally became active just today after a hiatus). So you should back up your claims with hard evidence. And regarding UN recognition, there was a clear conflict of interest at the UN and it was not politically neutral in its response. Oz346 (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a personal attack. These are my observations and I have presented them here for others to consider. Also regarding the UN recognition, they haven't recognized this. What are you trying to tell by pointing that there was a "conflict of interest at the UN" ? So are you using this point to assume that the UN recognized this "Genocide"? This similar approach has been used throughout this article. What has been done in this article is combine material from multiple sources to reach this "Genocide" conclusion. Even most of these sources don't mention about Genocide. This is WP:SYNTH. Also, the UN and other human rights organization such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have reported war crimes committed by both sides. They haven't mentioned anything about "Genocide". The article War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War is already there which talks about the war crimes committed by both parties. If we take a look at this "Tamil Genocide" article, it is so much biased. The UN panel report says LTTE used civilians as a human buffer, killed civilians who attempted to flee the LTTE, fired artillery from among civilians before quickly moving away leaving the civilians on the receiving end of the return fire, forced recruitment of the children to fight for the LTTE ^[1]. Aren't these also a "genocide"? Why is only one party being mentioned in this article? Also look at the use of the words. In the article, it says "Sinhala army" instead of Sri lankan army in some places. Unbelievable. Also regarding the "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal" decision, the International Crisis Group says "The credibility of the quasi-judicial process was undermined by the absence of any attention to violations committed by the LTTE and the lack of input from representatives or advocates of the Sri Lankan government and military" in this report [51]. JohnWiki159 (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a slanderous personal attack when you claim I'm working with these sock puppet abusers "as a group", especially when I have publicly opposed their unreliably sourced content. It's an attempt to smear.

The UN system is not completely neutral as their own internal investigations have proven. Some UN officials were complicit in the massacres by downplaying and hiding them. To say that there was no genocide just because the UN has not said it yet is ludicrous. In order for the UN to recognise it would require legal proceedings to take place, which no UN member state is willing to initiate (as most are allied towards the Sri Lankan state not Tamils). So the UN as a whole is not a neutral arbiter.

This is broadly an article on the genocide of Tamils by Sinhalese nationalists, hence the focus on genocidal acts by the Sinhalese dominated government. There are no reliable sources claiming that the LTTE committed genocide against Tamils. So no, their actions against Tamils are not "also a genocide".

If you have a problem with words like Sinhala army those can easily be changed to Sri Lankan army, it's not a major problem. Finally, the International Crisis Group is a biased western government orientated research group and are not neutral either. They have openly lectured Tamils to renounce separatism. One of their former heads for example was involved in downplaying the East Timor genocide: http://www.etan.org/et2007/august/11/08gareth.htm. ICG's argument that a genocide tribunal against the Sri Lankan government was undermined by lack of focus on LTTE crimes does not disprove genocide. If someone commits genocide, the separate criminal actions of another person does not absolve them of genocide. The Sri Lankan goverment were invited to defend themselves at the tribunal, but they refused, so the tribunal cannot be blamed for that. Oz346 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You raised the question, "Aren't these also a genocide?" The term genocide is defined as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such." This definition includes a physical element, which consists of the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:

Killing members of the group

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I am afraid that the acts you claim to have been committed by the LTTE do not meet the criteria of genocide. The actions attributed to the LTTE, while grave and serious if they are true; however, do not appear to fit the specific legal and definitional criteria necessary to constitute genocide as outlined above. ALKBH5 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — ALKBH5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These pages are in watchlist hence editing them ,I have been editing Sri Lankan articles since 2006. The article does have WP:SIGCOV coverage and article with significant coverage cannot be deleted. 58 Editors have edited this page making 726 edits and that is substantial editing by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Move:The page was created by a sock who also actively and openly canvassed at least on reddit and is affected by heavy sock and meatpuppetry. The charge of Genocide remains allegations and accusations, with no UN investigation establishing Dolus Specialis. Many of the sources used in the article are WP:SYNTH and references acts that are not Genocide and sources themselves make no mention of Genocide. There is also the issue of WP:TAGTEAM that needs to be addressed as well. -UtoD 07:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several reliable scholarly sources discussing the topic of 'Tamil genocide', so it is notable enough for its own article. Several peer-reviewed sources are indexed by Google Scholar on this topic. The article has already gone through a discussion to merge, and a discussion to rename, and now a discussion to delete (see its talk page). There are several people who do not like the details in this article being seen on wikipedia. But that is not a valid reason to remove.Oz346 (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep firstly it is a procedural close as the article is protected.There are scholarly sources about Tamil Genocide and particurly the Tamil massacre's in 2009 is called Genocide.Further G5 is not applicable as there has been that have been substantial edits by others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that the 2009 Tamil massacre has its own dedicated article. There's no term "genocide" there. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5? It's not a speedy deletion! — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnWiki159 and also WP:SOAP. Wikipedia cannot be used for pushing an agenda. CharlesWain (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This The Peoples’ Tribunal Sri Lanka made a comprehensive ruling that qualified the events in Sri Lanka as genocide against the Tamil populace commit by the Sri Lankan government in accordance with international law. All major parties in Canada have recognized that a genocide took place on the island.@ HereforOnce777 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — HereforOnce777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable scholarly sources discuss Tamil Genocide. It passes WP:GNG. Articles well sourced cannot be deleted. Socking is not relevant as there have been substantial edits by others. 27.4.1.83 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — 27.4.1.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JohnWiki159. I came here from ANI report. This article is clearly making fun of the word "genocide" since no such genocide against the Tamils actually took place. Orientls (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personal opinions do not matter. We don’t make up articles from thin air, either it has reliable sources backing up or not. If you ask a Turk, Armenian genocide didn’t happen. Well that is not good enough reason, just because you felt it didn’t happen. Prove it Kanatonian (talk) Kanatonian (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move there’s been enough use of the term that it can be acknowledged through an article; however, I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide in the academic or legal worlds for Wikipedia to deem it as such, and those who don’t want it called “allegation” seem to universally misunderstand what we mean when we say “allegation.” We’re not saying that the occurrence of the incidents themselves are “allegations” necessarily but the claim that they amount to genocide is, genocide being a specific legal term for which Wikipedia has certain standards to use. SinhalaLion (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe deleting it and adding the sepcific allegatiosn of Genocide back to the War Crimes page. Large sections of the article have nothing to do with the Genocide allegation and is more about seperate accusations like displacement, settler colonialism etc and many sources don't even mention Genocide as an allegation. Article is excessively bloated by WP:SYNTH. -UtoD 12:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the article is very poorly sourced and draws a lot of its content from existing that seem to use the same sources. Advocates of this page [52] claim that there are many academic sources, however they have not assisted in the efforts undertaken to improve the quality [53]. Furthermore, from what I see there seems to be an underlying agenda at play here. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC) — Kalanishashika (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really bad bias and POV. Littered with AI-generated text everywhere, such as "This act of reconstruction not only restored the physical monument but also served as a reaffirmation of the community's commitment to remembering the past and seeking justice. The rebuilding of the statue in Jaffna stands as a testament to the enduring spirit of the Tamil people and their continued struggle for recognition and reconciliation." Needs to be completely overhauled; blow it up and start all over again, WP:TNT. Florificapis (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable passages like that can easily be removed or rectified without having to nuke the whole page. Oz346 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Florificapis: A WP:POVDELETION is, in fact, against WP:NPOV policy. –Konanen (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a bad faith nomination, littered with procedural errors and personal attacks. A badly written article is no reason for deletion. A contested subject matter is not a reason for deletion. If enough reliable sources said that a genocide happened in Sri Lanka, then as an encyclopedia content creating community we can create an article. If the article is not written from neutral perspective or it is not balanced or uses peacock words we have enough notifications to improve the article. This is total hogwash, speedy close. Kanatonian (talk)
Draft-ify the current article is an embarrassment (partially because, per tradition, the The Wrong Version was protected; Special:Permalink/1225326372 is merely bad). It is argumentative, and has no clear topic-boundaries. Other articles, such as War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War, cover (most of) the topic area better. The one exception is about historiography in particular; the post-war discussions of whether the specific word "genocide" should be used are a coherent topic that isn't discussed elsewhere. This needs to be completely re-worked, and doing so in draft-space will hopefully lower the temperature. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No Tamil genocide ever happened. War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War already exists. We should not trivialize the word "genocide". Lorstaking (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. it's some times confusing in most of the world's warring fronts whether it's War Crime or Genocide happend, but there are enough books discuss on Genocide.Lustead (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No genocide against the Tamils ever happened contrary to this POVFORK. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 16:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal opinion with absolutely zero back up as to why HereforOnce777 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — HereforOnce777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lorstaking. Created by a sock, the article is sending a misleading message. Raymond3023 (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are reliable sources that discuss the possibility that genocide occurred in Sri Lanka so there is no issue with Wikipedia having an article on the subject. The nominator and others claim that the article is a WP:POVFORK but they haven't said from where - is there an article that says the genocide didn't happen? Others have stated that allegations of genocide can be included in the war crimes article but that article already exceeds size guidelines so it makes senses to have genocide in a separate article. Agree that this is a bad faith nomination by an Indian editor who has had no previous interaction with this article or any other Sri Lankan article. Same with his Indian friends CharlesWain, Orientls, Lorstaking, Pravega and Raymond3023. The only argument these meatpuppets can make for deleting the article is that it didn't happen. However, I do agree with the positive criticism by independent editors that the article is in a very poor shape. It lacks focus. I am open to suggestion of moving to draft space. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, various academic articles and books identifying it as a genocide, and plenty of documentation regarding various crimes against humanity that would constitute the definition of genocide. If the problem is that the article is poorly-written, then improve it to better reflect Wikipedia's standards without denying proven facts. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Canada has a Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day, and the article in dispute itself is linking to various pogroms against the Tamil committed in Sri Lanka. A genocide does not have to be successful or accepted by the perpetrators as such to receive the label; attempted genocide is still a genocide.

Konanen (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Canada recognises the Tamil genocide and there are several experts who either see evidence for a potential genocide or recognise it as genocide. The article definitely needs to be heavily rewritten and "Tamil Genocide Accusation/Allegations" would be a more appropriate title, but deleting it altogether would be ignoring history. Rayanblaq14 (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Rayanblaq14 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada does not recognise any "Tamil genocide". Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether it does "actually" constitute genocide or not it seems that there are plenty of sources discussing it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Darusman, Marzuki; Sooka, Yasmin; Ratner, Steven R. (31 March 2011). Report of the Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka (PDF). United Nations.

Keep Cited sources like Rome-based Permanent Peoples' Tribunal found Tamil genocide happened. Let's respect the views of experts and ignore the personal opinions of nationalist users unqualified to make that judgement. Laxshen (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: several accounts !voting "keep" have either never been active in this topic or have not at all been active in recent months or years. There's a real possibility of off-wiki co-ordination. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator also an Indian editor, you too an Indian Editor; within an hour of this AfD nomination, you have come out with your comment. You should explain how it is possible. Lustead (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this topic Japanese or Indian? You are targeting people by imagining their nationalities as "Indian" despite the topic being also Indian. You edited after more than 1 year and 4 months only to vote on this AfD for saving this ridiculous article. That's why others believe that you have been canvassed. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has nothing to do with India. Did you even bother to read it before nominating it for deletion? Obi2canibe (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is not Japanese or Indian, but Sri Lanka specific but why majority of the "Delete" votes are coming from Editors who have contributed India specific topics. I am involved since 2007 Sri Lanka War related topics, someone can't influence me, vote "Keep" .... but as I mentioned in the Keep vote above there are enough books discuss on Tamil Genocide and it's not ridiculous. A war which happened in the final phase by sending out the UN agencies in the war zone leaves room for War Crime and Genocide.Lustead (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is about Tamils who are mostly found in India. Even if you are going to deny that, then still, there is whole Tamil genocide#India on this article and content related to India has been mentioned a number of times outside that section as well. Your claim that this subject is unrelated to India is entirely false. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation relating with Tamils in India and other issues doesn't give enough justification why majority of the editors involved India related topics are here. You just nominated without any iota, others are just here to support you, that's all.Lustead (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lustead, any further ethno-national personalization will result in immediate sanctions. I've already blocked one user for it, so please be sure you live up to these standards. El_C 01:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who did not previously edit on this topic I want to note I found this AfD like I find many - via a noticeboard on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misleading sock creation. After reading the whole article, one can conclude that nobody recognises this non-existing "genocide". There is already List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War and more. Calling it a "possibility" or "attempted genocide" is not enough for letting you get around the misleading claim of a "genocide". Azuredivay (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A cursory examination of Google Scholar demonstrates a preponderance of reliable academic sources discussing it. These include [54] very recent work] on the topic of Necropolitics as it intersects with genocide, book chapters, and academic interviews. Considering the extensive and varied nature of the high quality sources on the topic I'm somewhat perplexed that anyone would claim this did not meet the WP:GNG threshold. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preponderance of reliable academic sources? Sanglap is of doubtful reliability, is published by an unknown publisher and has no impact factor. The other two are interviews and can't be used to establish notability (see WP:PRIMARY). Can you provide actual academic sources that can be used on Wikipedia? — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One is a book chapter. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "book chapters" talk about the "Sri Lanka's war crimes" and that has been already covered at War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator wrote Nobody recognizes any "Tamil Genocide". An absurd statement like that gives me the impression that the nominator didn't even attempt an WP:BEFORE. There is quite clearly a preponderance of reliable academic sources discussing the genocide of the Tamil people. The most basic of research would have demonstrated that to them. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to what I wrote above, when I performed a search using Jstor I found [55], [56] and [57] all of which reference the Tamil Genocide. When I performed a search using ProQuest I found [58], [59] and [60] all of which reference the Tamil genocide. As I wrote above a search on Google Scholar locates many more sources. TarnishedPath^talk 12:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, there are books with "Tamil genocide" in the title: [61] Ravenswing 18:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Book by Francis Boyle who is himself a human rights lawyer, noted for several cranky ideas. Absolutely not a good source when it comes to deciding WP:GNG. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Books by human rights lawyers are disqualified as reliable sources? Hm. That must be a new guideline. Could you link that for me? Ravenswing 04:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights lawyers are well and truly qualified to talk about human rights abuses. TarnishedPath^talk 05:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the alleged "cranky ideas" that you hyperlinked, it only confirms why Professor Boyle is indeed a qualified authority on this topic and your attempt to cast aspersions on him is baseless:

"During the war for independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Boyle became the first international-law legal adviser to the first Bosnia-Herzegovinian president, Alija Izetbegovic. Boyle prepared and filed with the International Court of Justice Case 91, also known as the Bosnian genocide case claiming that genocide took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that Serbia was responsible for and complicit in that genocide. The final verdict of the case in 2007 stated that while Serbia had not committed genocide, genocide indeed had taken place in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that Serbia was responsible for "failing to prevent and punish the genocide which it knew was taking place."---- Petextrodon (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9 seems to talk about the use of the term genocide by the Tamil community rather than necessarily call what Sri Lanka did a "genocide." 10 is about poetry. 11 doesn't work, and 14 literally only shows one book with "Tamil genocide" in the title. I would even argue that 8 is largely about what the protesters saw as genocide. Hence "Tamil genocide accusation" may be more appropriate given what the WP:RS themselves say. SinhalaLion (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, even using Google Scholar, [62] refers to the allegation made by critics of Sri Lanka. I don't have access to [63] but I recall somehow coming across it some time back and, if I remember correctly, it said that what happened in Sri Lanka is better described as "proto-genocide" than "genocide." [64] I can't access but seems to talk about the protesters' allegation of genocide. Hence, "Tamil genocide accusation" or "Tamil genocide allegation" may be more appropriate. And this is ignoring that Google Scholar itself returns some hits that wouldn't be acceptable by Wikipedia's standards (e.g., I saw three master's theses). SinhalaLion (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SinhalaLion, It's an incomplete article yet even at this stage there are several competent authorities on the matter who used the genocide description: 1) Kingsbury (2012) 2) Short (2016) 3) ICJ Review 4) Permanent Peoples' Tribunal 5) Harman (2021) 6) Prof. Francis Boyle 7) Israel Charny (1994). I can also add PEARL (before my entire paragraph on sexual violence was unfairly removed due to revert war) although they aren't an academic journal but advocacy group with legal background whose founder has nevertheless published in journals and used the genocide description [1][2]. There are several more scholars who briefly describe the Sri Lankan state violence as genocidal which didn't make the article but can be added later somewhere, although the user Kashmiri already thought it was citation overkill. So, at what point do we say we have enough reliable sources? ----Petextrodon (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried not to remove any scholarly reference that would discuss the events as a genocide. It was rather duplicate references to mass media that I removed. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response

So, at what point do we say we have enough reliable sources?

A lot more than what you’ve presented, to be honest. I haven’t read Kingsbury or Short — do they actually accuse Sri Lanka of genocide? One of the references you cited is an advocacy group airing its views. Even as per your argument, you have “brief” references to “genocidal” and I’m not sure that meets Wikipedia’s standards.

Anyways, my comment was more to highlight the flaws in the methodologies proposed by other commenters that they claim back their stance. For anyone who actually takes a look, these methods get thin pretty quickly. I’m also ignoring that Google Scholar returns hits that says that Sri Lanka didn’t commit a genocide. I’d say, overall, the case for Wikipedia call this page “Tamil genocide” is weaker than those of Bangladeshi genocide and Guatemalan genocide, though I’ll concede Black genocide and East Timor genocide I’m not so sure. But perhaps all this is immaterial to the overall question at hand since I’ve already voted to Keep (though I would want this article moved to the draft space for rework and renamed to accusation). SinhalaLion (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Transgender genocide.

"A lot more than what you’ve presented, to be honest."

Isn't that subjective? What's the appropriate cutoff point? As for the aforementioned genocides, some of their sources too may only briefly mention genocide without detailed legal analysis. If dozens of detailed legal analysis by international law experts is the bar you're aiming for, I'm afraid many "less popular" genocides will fall short of it.---Petextrodon (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transgender genocide is so poorly written and unfocused that I'd be willing to TNT it. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a quick look at Transgender genocide it seems like an essay and a bit WP:SYNTHy. I'd have to have a look at it in more detail to say whether it deserves WP:TNT or not though. TarnishedPath^talk 02:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whether there actually was a planned genocide of Tamils or not, the plain fact is that there are numerous reliable sources either claiming so or discussing the subject. That's enough to sustain an article on the subject, and I'm surprised at the number of non-newbie editors who are for some reason ignoring WP:N here. Aside from that, I won't belabor the disgusting fallacy that one needs to have demonstrated prior interest in South Asian articles to apply the same notability and verifiability standards here as applies to all articles. Ravenswing 18:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: to all editors voting Keep: since many of you refer to "numerous reliable sources" mentioning or discussing the term Tamil genocide, while providing 2–3 links at most, will you likewise argue to keep an article titled Palestinian genocide, given the existence of an incomparably higher number of sources mentioning or discussing the latter term? Or will you use a completely different yardstick, as the editors there have done? Because the issue of naming consistency in genocide-focused articles is of paramount importance, as it has already used an incredible amount of community time. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't believe there has been a "genocide" against Palestinians, yes, had I participated in the October AfD, I would have voted to Keep, for the exact reason you proffer -- that it's a widely discussed topic with many reliable sources -- regardless of my personal opinion on the subject. Why? Were you expecting otherwise? Do you yourself allow your personal politico-ethnic views to override dispassionate applications of Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Ravenswing 04:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri, firstly WP:OTHERTHINGS applies here. Each subject should be evaluated on its own merits. Secondly, you can't expect every one who might participate in one AfD to participate in all AfDs. Thirdly, speaking for myself only, I voted along similar lines to what I did here when I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights violations against Palestinians by Israel. Not that it should matter to how I vote here because as I stated above WP:OTHERTHINGS. I really don't see that your question has any validity insofar as what keep voters might or might not do in other discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri, Yes I would, especially the current Gaza offensive which has striking similarities to the 2009 Mullivaikkal massacre (as several commenters have remarked) but with the reservation that definite wording may be premature as it's an ongoing conflict. That however didn't prevent you from giving the "strongest possible support" to recognizing Palestinian genocide as early as 3rd of March this year, when most of the accusations were about genocidal intent but barely any reliable source explicitly confirming genocidal actions.

As for the "higher number of sources", note that Palestinian genocide lede also includes progressive advocacy groups like the Center for Constitutional Rights and a writing by a Palestinian doctoral student Rabea Eghbariah which was rejected by the Harvard Law Review (not that I have issues with them but you have challenged Tamil genocide article on similar grounds). However, it's also true Palestine has a greater media coverage since it has a lot of powerful international backers due to various geopolitical and religious factors, although far more Tamil civilians died in the 2009 Mullivaikkal massacre with UN complicity. Tamils have no such powerful backers, sometimes left forgotten. Even the Indian Hindu nationalists are known to justify persecution of the Tamil people due to their equating the Sri Lankan Tamil issue with Kashmiri separatism and ethnic bias against Tamil Nadu.

In any case, can we not also wonder whether you approach this topic with the same yardstick as you have done repeatedly in Palestinian genocide discussions? Your edit history here and in Tamil genocide article and its various talk discussions speaks for itself.---Petextrodon (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: To aid the closer, participants are allowed to mark single-purpose and dormant accounts with ((spa)) or ((canvassed)), respectively. But in the interest of transparency, these need to be accompanied by a sig + timestamp in small text (<small>text</small>) so that it's clear who had placed a given tag when. Thank you. El_C 19:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Genocide was committed by Sri Lankan military assisted by most of the western countries + India, Pakistan, china and Russia. Over 169,000 innocent Tamil people were slaughtered by the Sinhala military. Tamils were prosecuted by Sinhala since the independence of SL in 1948. Tamil genocide page is essential for public knowledge. Canada has acknowledged by the Tamil genocide and multiple US congressmen/women have voiced concern. A resolution was passed for Tamils to exercise self determination and an independent referendum for statehood. This page must not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.97.140.74 (talk) — 98.97.140.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above by TarnishedPath and supporting argument by Ravenswing, as well as other strong policy based arguments scattered throughout this thread. I agree with the criticism that the article needs cleanup, but that has nothing to do with its notability, and I'd be happy to help with said cleanup if we end on "keep". I have no background in this topic, and like a few others found this argument from the admin noticeboard; I'm frankly disgusted by the amount of comments above which ignore policy in favor of their own personal opinions. There's a reason for COI policies, and editors should steer well clear of arguing to delete articles just because they don't agree with what sources say. If reliable scholars are discussing "XYZ Genocide" then it is a notable topic, even if the world isn't in total agreement on the issue. Chiselinccc (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiselinccc 100% on what the reliable sources say, as against what other government recognise. We do reliable sources not original research. Additionally as you note WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article can be improved, it's not at a WP:TNT point requiring starting from scratch. TarnishedPath^talk 05:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As noted by several "keep" arguments as well, the case of a "genocide" is not clear at all, as such I don't think we should be having article over a dubious subject. Wikipedia is not for WP:ADVOCACY. At best, a section can be created on War crimes during the final stages of the Sri Lankan Civil War to discuss whether any genocide really took place or not. Currently that article has some content about the "genocide" claims but it can be placed on a specific section. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the accompanying notes in this !vote are wilfully misleading, as I personally am unable to find any Keep !vote that actually questions the validity of a case for genocide. After all, it is not our purpose as Wikipedians to question the dubitability of valid sources from our WP:SOAPBOX, but to WP:ASSERT facts in a neutral manner. The topic is verifiably notable enough—by way of numerous valid sources (all linked to within this AfD discussion) confirming or arguing its existence—to warrant the topic’s inclusion to WP as an article. –Konanen (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996, can you please list who those several "keep" voters are who make an argument that the case of a "genocide" is not clear and provide specific quotes to back up your assertion? TarnishedPath^talk 22:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SinhalaLion said "I’m not convinced that it has enough of a mass recognition as genocide", Konanen said "attempted genocide is still a genocide,", Obi2canibe said "There are reliable sources that discuss the possibility that genocide occurred in Sri Lanka". This confirms my comment thatthere is no clear case of genocide even according to several "keep" supporters. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As may be, but that's not relevant. The measure of the notability of a subject is that subject's coverage in reliable sources. Ravenswing 05:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object. That is a misconstruction of what I said in my !vote. My, perhaps poorly worded, meaning was that a genocide does not have to have been successfully carried to completion to be considered as such, which can also be verified in the lead of Genocide: acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group
See also Genocidal intent. But, as Ravenswing accurately says, this point is not relevant to the validity and notability of the article. –Konanen (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abhishek0831996 no it doesn't. All of those comments do not say 'that there is no clear case of genocide' or even imply it. Those statements do not confirm the correctness of your statement. TarnishedPath^talk 01:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not see a reason to delete given that 'Tamil genocide' is discussed by a plethora of reliable sources. This alone is sufficient ground to have an article, regardless of whether its status as genocide is questioned or not. Brat Forelli🦊 01:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had closed a recent RM concerning this article. I agree that the topic itself is unsubstantiated and has only passing mentions in sources, let alone passing WP:GNG. >>> Extorc.talk 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a terrible nomination by a user who has either lied about there being no one who recognized Tamil genocide or hasn't read the content he's disputing. The introduction to the article clearly cites several sources that do. The nominator mentioning a banned sock puppet has poisoned the well, and misleads voters, since it has no relevance to the current version. It's a bad faith nomination that makes an extreme claim and suggests an extreme solution.Airjordan2k (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Airjordan2k (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri, can you provide evidence for your claim that this editor was canvassed to this discussion? TarnishedPath^talk 01:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify - Given the extreme dubiousness with regards to the subject and mostly forked content on the article, the page cannot stay in the current form. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 South African Touring Car Championship[edit]

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

Contested draftification. Article is completely unsourced and barely has any content. Also, context is insufficient and leaves a lot to be desired. Editor has created several of these articles, which have only been tagged as "unsourced". I suggest returning to draftspace so it can be improved there. No objection to deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and South Africa. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and Motorsport. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Article needs work (a lot of it) before it is ready for the mainspace, however the information included can be verified in a number of secondary sources, even if refs aren't currently included. And while I acknowledge its prematurely been moved to the mainspace, based on the date stamps this AfD was initiated within a few hours of the article's creation. There is a reasonable potential that it can be improved. For those reasons I'm unwilling to !vote delete at this stage. Dfadden (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha O'Kennon[edit]

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

Retired professor with single-digit number of publications, one with 24 citations on Google Scholar and all the rest less than 10, far from enough for WP:PROF. All sources are by her or from her employer, inadequate for WP:GNG. This was already draftified and restored to article space (by copy & paste) without any significant improvement; for draft history see [65]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Mathematics, Computing, China, Michigan, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Record looks far short of WP:NPROF, and no other notability is apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She also does not meet WP:BASIC. I found one news article talking about art pieces she makes, and nothing more. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Search turned up nothing to meet notability on any standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing came up in a search that would indicate any sort of notability. Also of note, the article creator Davidpgca (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA dedicated to writing articles on Albion College related people and topics, including a number that may or may not meet notability standards. nf utvol (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that, looking through images contributed by Davidpgca [66], all the images appear to be tagged as "own work". That appears to be true for very few of them (in particular, not for the ones that are 80 years old). Anyone know how to report at Commons? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that myself. I have gone in and tagged the items that are not clearly in the public domain for removal on the basis that this user is not the owner of the works. nf utvol (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She seems to have led a neat life, but not one that rises quite to the level of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 16:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The citability data is quite low, and there is nothing else to indicate passing WP:PROF on other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC by a cricket yard. -The Gnome (talk) 13:09, 29 May 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.