< April 20 April 22 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Tourism in Ontario#Destination Ontario. ✗plicit 05:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Ontario[edit]

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

From what I can see, this article does not meet WP:NCORP. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:42, 21 April 2023 (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 . Although relisted, there wasn't a clear consensus. If the article still isnt improved then this could be nominated again. (non-admin closure) Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Niemann[edit]

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

This was just closed as no consensus, without any improvement to the article. She had her 15 minutes. A clear case of WP:BIO1E, no in-depth coverage other than fluff pieces. Outside of her look-alike status, she has no claim to fame. Might be worth a mention somewhere on the Arianna Grande page, if there was a section on "look-alikes". Onel5969 TT me 22:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:41, 21 April 2023 (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 05:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bungee ball[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:40, 21 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 23:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Residence (TV series)[edit]

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

May have received tax credits, but there’s no indication that filming has started to make a notable production per WP:NFF/WP:NFTV. - 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this was created on my behalf. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B149:8C36:F886:DE3:2C6:FFE (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:39, 21 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 23:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Declaration International[edit]

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

Delete This article is unworthy of Wikipedia, horribly written, confusing, biased, and controlled merciless from edits. If this is what wikipedia is, the article should be deleted. People can find better sources of unbiased information than wikipedia ideologues. Then the activists will have fewer pages to monitor and control. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of garbage that comes up when you search the group on Google News, but the cites already in the article demonstrate notability. (t · c) buidhe 23:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the subject is notable. See Wikipedia:SIRS.
Which are the multiple sources that satisfy the criteria?
There is one from PinkNews (and we can't use any others from PinkNews to establish reliability).
But looking at the other sources in the article: No consensus on WP:RS that Vice is reliable. Neither Common Weal, a think tank, nor Jezebel, a blog, are reliable sources.
There are some Norwegian sources that may count. In good faith, what's the case? AndyGordon (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It seems like OP is just upset that their edits got reverted and is lashing out. Despite ample opportunity they have yet to point out specific issues with the article, mostly just attacking other editors. I guess they're trying to say it's a WP:ATP? But as stated on the talk page, if the majority view of a subject is negative, the article will naturally take a negative tone, per WP:NOTNEUTRAL. --Pokelova (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being practical. Wikipedia can't afford to have articles only written by detractors of any topic, and who revert helpful edits, like moving material to a criticism section rather than every paragraph is filled with "X, but critics say Y" format that activists seem to do when given free rein to write and block edits. Where is "Neutral point of view" under that? Tom Ruen (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought on seeing your recent behaviour was to assume that yours was a recently registered troll account of the sort that we unfortunately see all too often. On looking further, I was shocked and saddened to see that you have been editing since 2004 and that your behaviour here is completely out of character. My second thought was to wonder whether your account had been compromised. Assuming that this is not the case then I implore you to take a break to deal with whatever has triggered this unusual behaviour and then, when you feel able, to go back to constructive editing in the subject areas where you are able to contribute constructively. Please don't throw away your almost two decades old Wikipedia account over this. DanielRigal (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a "women's rights declaration" being reduced to this summary that doesn't even say what it is for or why? Tom Ruen (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The group is known for publishing the Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights, co-authored by Jeffreys and Brunskell-Evans, which called for the "elimination" of "the practice of transgenderism" and for the UK to repeal the Gender Recognition Act.
Agreed, we need superbly written articles controlled by both activists and detractors. Neutral point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Biased, no, it's neutral and properly sourced. "I don't like it" isn't a reason to delete the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep. Note that the nominator was pblocked from the article as a result of their edits. I would close this discussion myself if I weren't involved. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Doesn't appear to be notable. Delete unless evidence shown and agreed that it meets the criteria at WP:ORGCRIT. [User:AndyGordon|AndyGordon]] (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per @Oaktree b CT55555(talk) 04:07, 24 April 2023 (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 Survivor: Worlds Apart. If another redirect target is better, feel free to change. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Holloway (Survivor contestant)[edit]

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

Very known for only winning Survivor: Worlds Apart and being a fan favorite due to that season (and being one of top ten contenders of Survivor: Cambodia, despite being ineligible due to that win). However, I'm unconvinced that establishing an online T-shirt company makes this person more notable. Rather it appears to be.... resume-building... or something like that. Oh, and... the source I'm linking to is very more primary than secondary: the format was questions and answers, i.e. some questionnaire or interview. Moreover, unconvinced that becoming a real estate agent and marrying one of Big Brother contestants make him more notable either. If these notably make him more than just a Survivor winner, then I can stand corrected. However, even meeting notability doesn't mean this biographical article is needed in this project, and I'm unsure whether this is suitable for this project. If unsuitable, then redirect to either Survivor: Worlds Apart or the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 21 April 2023 (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 . North America1000 07:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris McStay[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:, the "pieces similar to the Daily Record piece" all go into his background and are not the same as the Daily Record piece. Young player with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, see my response above, also I have just spent some time doing a WP:HEY and expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". Clearly topic of interest in Scotland and Australian football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your response - nothing changes my mind. This is a player who has played in minor leagues in Scotland and Australia and gets minor coverage due to his famous father. That's it. GiantSnowman 08:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primary, promo, Fails IS RS SIGCOV :: 1.  "New Signing: Chris McStay". Clyde FC. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  • Routine sports story mentioning they "signed a deal until the end of the season", no SIGCOV :: 2. ^ McDougall, Mark (10 February 2018). "Son of Celtic legend Paul McStay makes Clyde debut after signing deal until end of the season". Daily Record. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  • Routine sports story mentioning they signed a deal, no SIGCOV :: 3. ^ "WOLVES SIGN SCOTTISH MIDFIELDER". Wollongong Wolves. 6 January 2023. Retrieved 5 April 2023.
  • Father son interview, fails IS RS SIGCOV :: 4. ^ Haggerty, Anthony (22 February 2018). "Sons of Celtic legends McStay and Grant on building their own careers at Clyde". Daily Record.
Above are more of the same, eg: [21], [22] promo interviews; [23], primary promo from club; nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  23:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing above meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please do a source eval of how your most recent article Serhii Korovayny meets the standards above that you apply to others articles? Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:TimothyBlue, can you please not use your personal login information in your Proquest URLs - I've got Proquest open, but your URL still tries to log me in through somewhere in Albany, which Fails. Just trim off the end so you get [24]] or use ProQuest 2022489520. BTW (see below), that looks like a good GNG article to me. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2023 (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 Tekken characters. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mokujin[edit]

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

In courtesy for the IP 103.120.117.110 (now user Kazama16) [25]. Reason: "Because the sources don't really talk about him and sources are just top 10 Tekken characters, top 11 Tekken characters etc." Additionally, Mokujin hasn't received any commentary at all.

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 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

1995 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources found; existing sources just scores/participant lists. Apparent WP:NEVENT fail. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 22:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Wikipedian lacks familiarity with the sport, it does not mean that the event is not notable. A quick Google search shows hundreds of thousands of results for Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix and an article covering the results of events should not be responsible for stating the notability of the event, since the original article Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix does this. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2023 (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 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

1994 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources found; existing sources just scores/participant lists. Apparent WP:NEVENT fail. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 22:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Wikipedian lacks familiarity with the sport, it does not mean that the event is not notable. A quick Google search shows hundreds of thousands of results for Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix and an article covering the results of events should not be responsible for stating the notability of the event, since the original article Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix does this. Besides, the point is to list the results, so a list of scores is enough. The notability of the event has been established in the original article describing the event. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2023 (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 . Consensus is sourcing is currently insufficient. Star Mississippi 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bils[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The main reliable source with nontrivial coverage about this subject is this Wall Street Journal article. I found some miscellaneous coverage stemming from this article in CNN and The Telegraph, but the combination of these sources is insufficient at this time to justify encyclopedic notability. WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E are also relevant: at the moment, we only know that Bils was the administrator of certain pro-Russia social media accounts, but there is no confirmation whether she was the source of any classified documents or whether she committed any crimes. A prior version of this article made many claims about her that were extremely poorly sourced (e.g. to tabloids or primary sources, which are both disallowed for sensitive BLP information, see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thousands of people have sizeable social media followings. Dozens of people may have spread copies of documents sourced to Teixeira. I am not convinced Bils’s role is yet beyond the scope of the guidelines CRIME and 1E.  —Michael Z. 15:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There may be more coming out. The Wall Street Journal should not qualify for a reliable source because they have published so many items which were not sourced properly. As my editor used to say, "if you cannot find a person to stand behind what your reporting, then it could be made up by you. Such articles we do not accept".
Maybe what the WSJ reports will be verified by someone, maybe not. The story of Ms Bils is not fully written yet, so let it stay for while. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:A984:A186:2440:5A79 (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Lance Hindt[edit]

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

Local news story fails WP:EVENTCRIT. While I have seen the viral video and find the story absolutely wild, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and should not be used as a venue to host local news content. Novemberjazz 21:53, 21 April 2023 (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 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

2004 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage found in reliable sources, appears to fail WP:NEVENT. None of the cited sources (if counted as WP:RS, which is doubtful) have more than a few sentences of prose about the event and are purely WP:ROUTINE reporting of scores. WP:BEFORE found nothing else. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (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 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

1997 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NEVENT. The only cited source(s) are a dubious website that just lists the scores with no prose/analysis. No independent RS coverage found.Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 21:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are results of old competitions. The Grand Prix committee has no official website and the results were thought to be lost, save for these very few sources. The notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit has not been challenged, so the results with documented sources should not be challenged either. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2023 (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 to User:BeanieFan11/Steve Finch. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Finch[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Played a single game in the NFL. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Obviously a completely unreferenced BLP is a problem, but if BeanieFan11 is willing to take it under their wing I see no reason not to give them a chance. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Information Technology Bogra[edit]

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

I originally PRODed this claiming Sources are all primary. Does not appear to meet WP:NORG. On second thought, this is probably ineligible for PROD due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Information Technology Bogra(IITB), but my original reason for deletion stands. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NORG fail. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 21 April 2023 (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 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

2000 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage found in reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:NEVENT. Cited sources (which are rather dubious in terms of WP:RS) are just simple score results with no prose or independent analysis. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means send that article to AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:40, 21 April 2023 (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 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. ✗plicit 23:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit[edit]

2005 Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage found in independent, reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:NEVENT. Could be redirected to Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a somewhat niche sport, but this competition is widely regarded as one of the most important ones in this sport. As a side note, I am starting to believe you are on a journey to spread misinformation about this sport and delete other people's hard work because of your lack of familiarity with this topic. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All wikipedia articles have to follow the notability guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand your point. The notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix has never been challenged before, so why are the results with documented sources challenged now? How are the sources in this article not good enough when this article provides even less sources for a similar event in a different sport and has not been proposed for deletion? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Where are the sources that show WP:NEVENT is met for this event? Find them and I'll immediately withdraw the AfD. (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not WP:NEVENT, but WP:NGYMNASTICS and WP:GNG. As per WP:NGYMNASTICS, the event meets the criteria. As per WP:GNG, the sources are independent from the subject, once they are not taken from an official website from the Grand Prix organization. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGYMNASTICS does not cover notability of events. Simple database sources with start lists and/or scores do not count towards GNG. (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGYMNASTICS clearly states what an elite event is. WP:GNG states that scores are not enough to establish the notability of events, however the notability of the Rhythmic Gymnastics Grand Prix circuit has been established before. Proving the relevance of each event in a circuit with 100+ tournaments, especially for competitions which happened 20 or 30 years ago, is extremely difficult. Would creating a single list with all medalists in these 100+ tournaments, from 1994 to 2023, meet your criteria for notability, instead of lists for every year? Do you have any other suggestion to keep the results in a separate article so that the original article about the circuit does not become too big? -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the individual competitions and circuits are not notable, then the complete list of medalists and scores is information that is not suitable for Wikipedia (unless it's relevant to an individual's biographical article). This is meant as an encyclopedia, not a complete database of sports scores. There are other websites where this type of information is more suitable. (t · c) buidhe 08:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the circuit has never been challenged, similar events exist in different sports and lists of medalists exist as different articles. The point of the lists is to inform the medalists, not the scores. Besides, almost all of the medalists each year have their own articles on Wikipedia, and you can check some biographies to see that the medals earned in Grand Prix events are mentioned in different biographies. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 09:30, 22 April 2023 (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 . Procedural close of an AFD started by a sockpuppet which has no support for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cookies: Bite-Size Life Lessons[edit]

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

Non-notable book Injury Attornies (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2023 (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 Weightlifting at the 2008 Summer Olympics. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pongsak Maneetong[edit]

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

Non-notable weightlifter. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . Star Mississippi 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Eton Boys[edit]

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

Insufficient in-depth coverage to establish notability. Mainly passing mentions. Fails GNG and WP:BAND. X (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Tomasi[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable driver. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mellodee[edit]

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

Article about a singer that doesn't meet WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Was rejected in draftspace and the author who happens to have a WP:COI and has moved it to mainspace after being advised to submit through WP:AFC. Jamiebuba (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Muente[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a singer, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim stated here is that she came in third in an Idol series 15 years ago, which is not an instant notability freebie all by itself -- but there's virtually no claim that she's done anything else of note since then ("has appeared in various TV shows", without sources, being the sum total of the rest of the article).
This has, furthermore, been tagged for notability and sourcing issues since 2010 without improvement -- and given that the subject is from Peru, I checked es to see what was there, and found that an article was deleted in 2010 for advertorialism and notability issues and has never returned since.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more Spanish-language skills (and access to archived Peruvian media coverage from 15 years ago) than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2023 (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 but keep Draft:Jenna Davis for now. Editors can request history merging if need be. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Davis[edit]

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

Previously deleted. Still not finding extensive coverage in RS. The Austin Chronicle is ok, People is a brief few sentences under a photo. Rest of the sources are interivews. Oaktree b (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge in the extra information from the draft.
The proposed AfD centered notability, but as @Nagol0929 and @Milowent have pointed out, there are additional sources that back WP:SIGCOV, including some in the Draft page, they are just not in the article yet but could be added and curated using curation tags.
She was also just nominated for the best Movie Villain for M3GAN in the MTV Movie Award for Best Villain, which happen in 3 weeks.
If this page was now deleted, then it would just necessitate another duplicated discussion in the AfC following shortly, that is not necessary.
Also counterpoint to @IJBall's argument above that it requires "3 or more", the WP:NACTOR guideline doesn't say 3, it says multiple ("more than one"), but also it doesn't limit it to one category, so between her roles in various shows including first listing for Treehouse Detectives as well as her role for M3GAN, both of which have articles on Wikipedia and have themselves been accepted as noteworthy. She has thus acted/voiced multiple significant roles in noteworthy movies/shows. Raladic (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. That is not how it is supposed to work – the draft has precedence. If the subject is deemed notable, the draft should be moved into mainspace, and this version deleted (or moved to draft in its place). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm new to the AfD process so please don't WP:BITE me, but I can't seem to find anything in the AfD guidelines that mentions a that you must delete and then raise the Draft again. The article was nominated on the grounds of notability, which can be addressed through copy edit.
As I mentioned in my comment above, I would recommend merging the Draft in (which I understand, an Admin could also merge in the history if that's what your concern is), but I also understand no one owns content, so for the sake of simplicity, it might be easier to just copy edit the merged content since both articles now have a WP:PHIST since the article in question itself has been improved during the AfD discussion. Raladic (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because you are new, you don't understand – whoever created the article first should get the credit for it (in this case, whoever created the draft and is adhering to the WP:AfC process), not the now-blocked editor who disruptively ignored an existing draft and "cut in line". If there is any content from the new version that is worth keeping (which I'm doubting), that gets merged into the Draft version, and the Draft gets moved into mainspace. Not the other way around. Do not reward editors who circumvent normal process and try to WP:Game the system. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting a WP:HISTMERGE, that is sometime done in cases like these. But I don't think it's worth doing in this case. It would be up to the admin, I guess. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Cutting the line" happens frequently among celeb/meme type articles -- draftifying something that the unwashed masses of the internet think is worthy of an article rarely succeeds. E.g., I am credited with creating articles like Annoying Orange even though i simply wrote a decent article after 10 awful ones got deleted. (This analogy is only 13 years old, thank you.)--Milowent • hasspoken 20:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was a decade+ ago (before I think Draftspace even existed – or that was very early on in its development). Nowadays the proper process should be respected.
Not respecting that process is a good way to drive good faith-editors right out of editing – What is the point of properly following procedure and trying to create a solid, well-sourced article through AfC, if some numbnuts troll is just going to create a trash article, and it's allowed to stand?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:06, 21 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lychack[edit]

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

Coverage of Lychack in secondary sources is relatively minor. Much of the sources seem to stem from primary sources (i.e. libraries which have published his works). Does not fulfill criterion (1), (2), or (4) of WP:AUTHOR, no evidence of (3) so far.

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Alawi[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of passing WP:SPORTBASIC. Every Wikipedia that has an article on him only uses database sources, which do not confer notability. I can find plenty on Ali Allawi but nothing about the footballer of this name. Even his Goalzz page makes no suggestion of notability, only showing 2 goals from over a decade ago in the 'Syrian Youth League', which does not give me any confidence that we will see significant coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Tong, South Sudan[edit]

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

Contested PROD, because "WP:GEOLAND Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." But there is nothing to indicated that this is a legally recognized place - it may even be a hoax. We should not be creating WP articles based on a single tag/term from Google Maps (which is contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well IMO). If this is a real populated place, we might keep a redirect to the legal jurisdiction it is part of. P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:06, 21 April 2023 (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 . Mojo Hand (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Enthroned (Cima da Conegliano)[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Immediate moving back to mainspace after draftification with no improvement. Requires substantial sourcing to remain here 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most literature on Cima is in Italian, but quite what it would be called in it is a question. Since it is supposed to be a predella section, somewhere there are bound to be long papers trying to tie it to other sections of the original altarpiece. These probably won't be online, except perhaps on JSTOR. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theramin: Took the words out of my mouth. All this editors creations should be speedily reintroduced to mainspace. Wikipedia has began to have a major problem with lack of WP:BEFORE and aversion to stubs/"bad" but notable articles in recent years.★Trekker (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Dovhyi[edit]

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

WP:SPORTBASIC #5 states that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This is the bare minimum threshold and, in reality, we need more than just the one good reference. Despite that, I can't seem to find even one good source about Dovhyi and the creator has only used RSSSF and Soccerway, neither of which are of any use whatsoever.

In Lithuanian sources, the best that I can find are Muge and Atvira Klaipeda, neither of which are even close to being good. A Ukrainian search only seems to give results about Ukrainian military rather than anything about this footballer. This article is not even remotely suitable to remain in mainspace. I considered sending to draft but the creator has been reverting such moves anyway so that seemed redundant. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Cadet Special Activities[edit]

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

We have a main article at National Cadet Special Activities, but we also have this quite outdated list of activities from 2008. Selectively merge any useful links to the main article and delete this list which provides too much detail. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:26, 21 April 2023 (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 Birmingham City School District. Sourcing is insufficient depth. History remains under the redirect should that change Star Mississippi 14:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Covington School[edit]

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

Fails GNG, source in article is primary, BEFORE showed normal local school news and database entries, nothing that meets WP:IS, WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  17:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few reasons why I believe BCS passes Wikipedia:Notability specifically. Clearly, it is a state building and school, and I do not believe it needs to completely adhere to general notability guidelines. It does have a few articles written about it and/or providing significant historical details about it:
Secondly, it is a Michigan school with 630 some kids coming from and to every single week, 5 times a day. I believe that BCS should be considered notable enough to have a page, this is not counting some of the notable BCS alumni. BuiltByBromine (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source you offered is a non-working link. Do you have a link that works? Cbl62 (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the second source, the history of Birmingham schools doesn't even mention Covington except in a directory at the end of the article, simply noting that it transitioned to a 3rd-8th districtwide school in 1995. This is not the depth of coverage that would be needed to support a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third source does have depth of coverage, but I'm not familiar with hometimelife.com or whether it qualifies as a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fourth source is something I saw in my search. The article is about an award-winning teacher. Iffy to me as to whether this qualifies as coverage of the school where he worked. Cbl62 (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not. It's been held here on Wikipedia for years that individual achievements of students and staff are not the achievements of the school and shouldn't even be mentioned in a school article. Also, i believe "Hometownlife" is an advertising rag and as such not reliable. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (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 . consensus is spinout is needed. I'll admit this was not your usual AfD discussion. Refreshing. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure episodes[edit]

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

I'm nominating this to stop a WP:BLAR edit war. Some editors think this should be a standalone article, others think it should be a redirect to Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. I note that the content in this article is identical to the content in Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. Personally I think this should be a redirect, since the exact same content is already included in Soaring Sky! Pretty Cure. That is a small article and this does not need a WP:SPINOUT yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, after any attempt to come to consensus on the talk page has been completely exhausted. As there's zilch on either and we don't consider edit comments an acceptable substitute, this nomination is horrendously premature. I stand by my rationale; discuss and use talk pages. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who created many episode list for many Pretty Cure episodes in a new article that comes from main article in my page: User:Ckng9000#Articles Created Ckng9000 (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and he comes and redirect my episode list says not notable even though there is notability warning already I have included notability warning when I created each new episode list for different Pretty Cure shows because I know someone is going to fix it later BaldiBasicsFan Ckng9000 (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I and other users have created WP:SPINOUT even though Pretty Cure shows were running live and before they aired Ckng9000 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
look at this one from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hug!_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=823882581 episode list created at air date February 4, 2018 never redirected was there when the anime was airing. Ckng9000 (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also created one for healin' good procure episode list when it first aired. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Healin%27_Good_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=938818625 Ckng9000 (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i also created this episode list of Delicious Party Pretty Cure in March 3, 2022 with only 5 episodes showing and never got redirected. Here is the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Delicious_Party_Pretty_Cure_episodes&oldid=1075017726 Ckng9000 (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of Pretty Cure shows had episode split during their air time Ckng9000 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked word count for most Pretty Cure articles and they range from 2,700 - 5,100 word count so why did they split them in the first place. A lot of Japanese anime have less than 15000 words from Wikipedia:SIZERULE and they do create episode split Ckng9000 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for socking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have a sock free week
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:57, 21 April 2023 (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 2019 Ronde van Drenthe. I also see a consensus to do a series of mergers and moves to make the names consistent. Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race)[edit]

2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a duplicate of 2019 Ronde van Drenthe, which was updated after the event has took place. The 2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) article has not been updated since the event in 2019. All the relevant information has been moved onto the 2019 Ronde van Drenthe page. Turini2 (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any connection between my text and the awkward text that appeared under it so I will skip this "reaction". gidonb (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you propose merging 19 articles? What do you mean by "unjustified spinoffs"? Turini2 (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And I will also skip this one. I had sealed off the bullying against me and was ready to open a new slate. This was undone. As a result, if I now continue the discussion, as if nothing happened, it could be understood that I condone someone's gender-based bullying. I do not. gidonb (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for clarity in your wording, which I hoped you could explain. I think we can move on. Turini2 (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know: bullying your peers at Wikipedia will not make you any friends. gidonb (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2007 Novilon Internationale Damesronde van Drenthe → 2007 Ronde van Drenthe
2010 Novilon Eurocup Ronde van Drenthe → 2010 Ronde van Drenthe
2014 Novilon EDR Cup → 2014 Ronde van Drenthe
2015 Novilon EDR Cup → 2015 Ronde van Drenthe
2013 Drentse 8 van Dwingeloo → 2013 Ronde van Drenthe
2014 Drentse 8 van Dwingeloo → 2014 Ronde van Drenthe
2015 Acht van Westerveld → 2015 Ronde van Drenthe
2016 Acht van Westerveld → 2016 Ronde van Drenthe
2007 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2007 Ronde van Drenthe
2013 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2013 Ronde van Drenthe
2014 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2014 Ronde van Drenthe
2015 Ronde van Drenthe World Cup → 2015 Ronde van Drenthe
2016 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2016 Ronde van Drenthe
2017 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2017 Ronde van Drenthe
2018 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2018 Ronde van Drenthe
2019 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2019 Ronde van Drenthe
2021 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2021 Ronde van Drenthe
2022 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2022 Ronde van Drenthe
2023 Ronde van Drenthe (women's race) → 2023 Ronde van Drenthe
gidonb (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Later added:[reply]
Dwars door Drenthe → Ronde van Drenthe
gidonb (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing 2016 onwards (potentially naming any men's race articles in the same period to men's race, women's race. The issue with the first eight on your list - is that those races aren't Ronde van Drenthe. They were adjacent events on the same weekend - hence the different names. Turini2 (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Turini2's support, Merge from 2016 to the non bracketed title. Plus all the previous versions to the targets as requested as per the main article the women's events used to be all stages of one race so one could argue they are part of a series. This is cleaner and simpler than my proposal. Having both men and Women's results for each edition in the year page is fine although if the Women's event does get expanded greatly then I would agree to it being stand-alone. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of this that you have added needs to be a separate proposal. This proposal should have been introduced when this AFD was opened, not on the day that it should be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Liz, it's not a new proposal. Just putting it down clear and square and easy to work with for whoever closes. The AfD was opened on April 13. On April 14, Paulpat99 said this is what we need to do with 2 articles. I joined on April 18 and said we should do this with 19 articles (as counted by nom). On April 19, pburka agreed and provided important additional rationale. On April 20, I fleshed this out as I did here with Sandstein and you providing governance. If PaulPat99 says this is what they intended or support, the AfD can already be closed as a merge/rename all per community consensus. And even if not, my proposal, as I see it, would still be the leading proposition among 4 participants in a first relist. If the claim is that the 20th article is a bit of an afterthought, I would agree. It belongs with the rest but was not immediately indicated. No problem to list this later. It would then become part of the template cleanup. gidonb (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orthodox churches destroyed as part of the recovery of churches in the Second Republic[edit]

List of Orthodox churches destroyed as part of the recovery of churches in the Second Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for almost 10 years, clearly not notable. The page is but a list article version of a category from WPpl, by the author's own admission here and here (WP:CIRCULAR, WP:SPS). I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malhama[edit]

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

"Malhama" ('saga') is a transliteration of an Arabic word. None of the 3 entries on this page is known as "Malhama" and the page is made up of only WP:Partial title matches, and so should be deleted as a disaambiguation page. There is no wikt entry for a soft redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2023 (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 . Although perhaps "moot" would be better: the article has been so extensively been expanded after the nomination that the reasons given in it no longer apply. Sandstein 20:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone in United States history[edit]

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

A weird hybrid kind of WP:COATRACK article with basically just one sentence about the history of the telephone in the US (the AT&T issue), and nothing about the role of the telephone in the history of the US (which is what the title awkwardly suggests). The one source is from 1988, but is used to make claims about the "current" situation of women and phones, which is for such rapidly evolving topics (both the use of telephones, and the role of men and women in society) not acceptable. WP:TNT if people believe this title could host an acceptable article, or simply delete if even the title is not really worth keeping (or at most as a redirect). Fram (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title "history of the telephone in the United States" does sound a bit better, but it indexes under "history" along with thousands of articles....Putting "Telephone" first solves that problem. More importasnt is that the page is not about phones as objects in themselves--rather it's about how their spread and use fit into the social and economic history of the U.S. Rjensen (talk) 02:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, please keep the title as it is. The history of the telephone in the united states is a completely different subject, it means the history of the phone, not an article about how the phone has influenced history. This may be one of those rare examples where we should have an article whose title begins "The", as, were you writing a book, you would undoubtedly entitle it "The Telephone in United States History". Elemimele (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the topic of the impact of the telephone on American society & culture and has not been covered. John Brooks book was sponsored by ATT and it focuses on the ATT leaders down to 1970, with very little on the phone's impact on USA. The best cultural history (by Fischer) covers three small town in California before 1940. So there is no published model to follow. I have not tried to create my own interpretive history--that would be original research. However I have tried to report what many diverse experts have written, and I have tried to provide a good bibliography that will help editors and readers do their own further research. Rjensen (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cover that however, in any manner or hint. A superficial notion of notability of a topic is not a reason to start an article without real supporting content, especially if you think that the topic has not actually been covered comprehensively. WP is not a place to start that, so the article should indeed be deleted. One reason for the lack of a comprehensive history is that the topic is too large. Telephony and telegraphy are disruptive technologies, just like the Internet, that cannot be covered comprehensively, as the entire society and national order and practices are reinvented or reshaped. The has been true for all communication technologies in human history. kbrose (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On April 23 Kbrose wrote (above): that it has "certainly been covered by many authors." but today all those authors are mysteriously gone--despite Kbrose's "certainly". Now he says that really big topics like the telephone and the internet are too big for Wikipedia. Well in fact dozens of scholars have written about subtopics on the telephone and I have been summarizing their published results-- I think that is what Wikipedia does best. (perhaps this is the "real supporting content" that Kbrose asks for.) An article that cover the telephone in 192 countries would be "too big" but I limit this to USA (plus a touch of Canada). Rjensen (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toronto Blue Jays home run leaders[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG; there is no reason for the Toronto Blue Jays to have their own article listing the players in franchise history with the most home runs. We cannot realistically extend this to every other MLB team with every other stat (RBIs, wins, putouts, etc.). Songwaters (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (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 Abbas (actor). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Ali[edit]

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

Non notable costume/ fashion designer. Has styled her husband in some movies and was the lead costume designer in one movie. All her notability is inherited from her husband and fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 15:15, 21 April 2023 (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 . "It's interesting" isn't a policy-based keep reason. On the other hand "It's not well known" is not a policy-based keep reason. The only policy-based argument is that it meets GNG, although it is not shown how this is met. Therefore I'm not finding consensus, and I don't think a third re-list for a fourth go-round is advisable. Should this topic be re-nominated, it should be clearly demonstrated that the topic does not meet GNG to overcome the lone policy argument. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PascalABC.NET[edit]

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

1. I do not believe the topic is notable enough to warrant a Wkipedia article. This programming language has some significance in some communities, but it isn’t well-known in general. The first few Google pages for the language’s name tend to be low-quality, auto-generated, or language-author-written things. Only 10 StackOverflow questions exist for the language. The language’s GitHub contributors list as well as issue/star counts also suggest this is a small project.

2. The article focuses a lot on showing code examples, instead of a more high-level look at the language and its history, as seen in e.g. the C#, Java or Python articles (which contain one or two examples). The code blocks, which make up the majority of the article, do not have any references, so they may constitute original research. I don’t think this style could be dramatically improved.

3. For a long time, most of the article’s content was written by two of the authors of the PascalABC.NET programming language, which is a conflict of interest. The article was rewritten by someone whose account was created after I placed a proposed deletion tag on the page (see Special:CentralAuth/Smart_squirrel_2020), and who only contributed to the PascalABC.NET articles on en.wiki and ru.wiki (see https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=Smart+squirrel+2020) - this behaviour is suspicious to me. Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 21:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"This programming language has some significance in some communities, but it isn’t well-known in general." --Kwpolska
This is interesting, because it brings into question whether there is bias, relative to what is significant to who. Which can be related to language or demographics. This is an article that met previous standards, that is now being challenged. There also appears to be lots of information from Russian sources, as oppose to its English equivalent. Something else that I noticed, is that various programming language communities are old enough or for various odd reasons, may not be concentrated in the same places as newer languages. GitHub or StackOverflow may not be representative metrics for such or certain languages, though of course this is a matter of debate.
In the case of Object Pascal/Pascal, the language is "fractured" into multiple dialects, but those dialects are close enough to each other where arguably sites, books, videos, and various other sources can be used. Instead of StackOverflow, users of the programming language may use the plentiful alternative sources available from close dialects (as PascalABC has similarities to Delphi and Free Pascal), not to mention those sources of a particular language.
Wukuendo (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I’ve been able to find out, this language is primarily, and perhaps exclusively, used in schools in Russia. I was unable to find any other uses of the language. For a language that first appeared in 2007 (at least that’s what the Wikipedia article says), it seems to be quite unpopular and not well known. Go is of similar age (2009), but there are 68k questions with the “go” tag on StackOverflow (and there might be Go questions missing tags). Zig, which first appeared in 2016, has 152 questions (but it regularly reaches the front page of the orange site, and its GitHub has a significant number of people who care about it). PascalABC.NET also has an announcement Telegram channel (archive link) with 1080 subscribers — again, a small number of people care about this language (and Telegram is quite big in Russia). Kwpolska (spam me/contributions) 22:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search of PascalABC on YouTube, starts to show the tremendous reach of the language, as there are numerous videos with very high view counts. Also there are many instances of the language being referred to as Pascal (Паскаль), but the videos show/demonstrate usage of the PascalABC dialect.
In general, Pascal/Object Pascal and its dialects/variants, can be hard to quantify in the same way as newer languages. This is because Pascal/Object Pascal has such a long history, thus a tremendous amount of learning materials and books already written on it. To elaborate further on the point that I touched on previously, those seeking to learn about or use PascalABC, can also draw upon their knowledge of or resources from other Pascal/Object Pascal dialects. A person who has used Delphi or Free Pascal previously, read books on Pascal/Object Pascal, or used Object Pascal/Delphi websites such as Delphi Basics, would arguably have little trouble understanding and using the PascalABC dialect. Pascal/Object Pascal dialects can "feed off" each other, in terms of learning resources. Their need for StackOverflow could be negligible and their users go elsewhere.
Various newer languages such as Zig, Nim, etc... don't or didn't have their GitHub discussions open or forums for their users to discuss problems or get help. Consequently it appears or an argument could be made that their users turned to sites like StackOverflow, Reddit, etc... to seek help and congregate. Users of languages like Pascal/Object Pascal, that existed before the popularity of those sites, may seek help or resolve questions elsewhere (at forums of particular websites) or through alternative ways like books, videos, etc... By contrast, there appears to be no published books on Zig (as of this post), where for Pascal/Object Pascal the list of books is very long.
Another related point, is that newer languages like Zig, appeared to have moved to GitHub (and used other popular American social media sites) very early in their history. Allowing them more time and momentum to generate followings on those specific platforms. Languages like PascalABC which came about before GitHub's rise in popularity and under different spheres of cultural influences, moved to GitHub much later in their history and where their users already had other alternatives. Free Pascal, for example, uses GitHub only for mirroring purposes and primarily uses GitLab. Programming languages have different histories and cultures, which should be taken into account.
"...this language is primarily, and perhaps exclusively, used in schools in Russia." --Kwpolska
I'm not sure in what context that this is meant, but as PascalABC uses .NET, applications created using the language would be nearly indistinguishable from other .NET languages such as C# or F#. PascalABC can be used commercially, and outside of academic circles.
Wukuendo (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) I think the article is interesting because it isn’t well-known in general. I learnt about the project thanks to the wikipedia article. It is a project where many people has been working and and is therefore a project with technological value.
2) More information can be added, but I don't see that examples of code is a reason to delete the page.
3) The article is not claiming the language is better than other languages. Obviously someone who know the project should write the article there is no option that someone write an article about something what he or she unknows. The language and the tool are not comercial, they are free. Sergodel (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on whether the available sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, being a university-born language created for educational purposes in the mid-2000's, PascalABC.NET started being discussed mainly on different Russian forums, and the main and "official" (if we can say so) resource for discussions was the institute's forum, where various people came, not only from the institute itself. I personally met PascalABC.NET in 2008 when I started studying programming at school and then continued at university (it worth be mentioned that StackOverflow was almost a newborn then). Up to now, the main platrorms for discussing PascalABC.NET are different forums historically uniting Russian programmers and people who study programming. For example, here is a special topic on CyberForum appeared no later than 2010 (note that the topic about Pascal ABC, the predecessor of PascalABC.NET, is alive from 2008 and up to now; also note that surfing this website without AdBlock is quite painful), and here is the special topic on the institute's website. Unfortunately, the latter one starts from 2015. In the days of my studies it lived on another web-resource of the institute, which was reorganized. Also as @Wukuendo outlined, PascalABC.NET is noticiable enough on YouTube, where a number of multipart educational tutorials exist (by comparison, Oxygene, whose notability is not currently questioned, has only a few mentions on YouTube). There is also a Coursera-like platform for online education called Stepic, and multiple free cources are presented there. Note that on both YouTube and Stepik some tutorials refer to PascalABC.NET as "Pascal" so searching "PascalABC.NET" anywhere you can't be sure that you get all the available info, as for many people "Pascal" may be equal to "PascalABC.NET".
As for GitHub, PascalABC.NET came there in 2015, when the language communities were formed already on other platforms. So yes, it is less notable on GitHub comparing to some younger languages, but more notable (if we compare the issues) than, for example, J language, whose notability is not questioned on Wiki, again (besides, I noted that precise references to documention for the code snippets extensively used in the J article are not demanded). Smart squirrel 2020 (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkic scholars[edit]

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

WP:CROSSCAT & WP:UNSOURCED for over 11 years. Judging by its title, its original opening sentence and its current categories, this list tries to be multiple things at once, and by lumping lots of different things together, it fails at all of them:

Note that in modern English, "Turkic scholars" usually refers to Category:Turkologists, i.e. scholars of Turkology / Turkic studies (ergo, occupation + field of study), not scholars who just so happen to speak a native language belonging to the Turkic languages family, which is what the title of this list appeared to be aiming for.
  • A series of recent CfDs including "Category:Turkic rulers" recently confirmed per WP:OCEGRS that people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.
  • The precedents have also established that a person having a native language that belongs to a certain language family is WP:NONDEFINING for that person's career. Even Turkologists don't need to have a Turkic language as their native language in order to be able to carry our their profession.
  • There is no reason to presume all so-called "Turkic scholars" were Central Asian and Muslim, and "Turkic" is not a "nationality".
Therefore, except for arbitary cross-categorisation without any RS to back it up, this list has no discernable legitimate purpose, and probably also cannot be given one. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2023 (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 . Insufficient coverage of Simpson Star Mississippi 14:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Elyse Simpson[edit]

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

Not enough notable person. I read the sources and found them only to have passing coverage/mentions. Forbes contributor is also depreciated on Wikipedia, so I would remove such links but let the community decide. Edit.pdf (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notable Jewish Transgender Woman, Journalist, Activist and Advocate. Much of this wiki has been vandalized by people that are discriminatory against transgender people. I made this wiki and used information about this person through google searches and the such. I added her writings and cited her accomplishments. I do not agree with many of the edits that were done on this wiki.
This entire section was vandalized and deleted
== Journalistic Writings ==
The Advocate Online[1]
July 24, 2018 - Israel's Right Turn Isn't an Excuse to Air Your Anti-Semitism[2]
June 13, 2016 - How Should We Respond? We Have to Love Our Lives Even More[3]
February 5, 2016 - Chicago's Creating Change Conference Was a Mess[4]
July 31, 2015 - Op-ed: Why This Trans Woman Doesn't Want to Ban Drag, But Say 'Thank You'
Refinery29
December 28, 2015 - 2015 In Trans Rights: The Stories You Might Have Missed[5]
May 10, 2016 - What It’s Really Like To Be A Trans Woman Using A Public Bathroom
HuffPost
April 3, 2017 - Governor Cuomo Lights The Night For Trans Visibility, And You Probably Missed It[6]
April 11, 2017 - 10 Transgender Plagues Of Passover -- Collapsing Parted Seas And Gender Binaries[7]
Bustle
June 14, 2017 - I Am A Transgender Zionist & An Anti-Israel Ambush Won't Stop Me[8]
The Times of Israel
September 22, 2015 - Reintroducing yourself on Yom Kippur[9]
The Guardian
November 11, 2016 - Trans people are terrified of what lies ahead. We must look out for one another[10] Jlopez2555 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need articles about the person, not stuff they've written. Not every "advocate" for xyz subject is notable. Most of these are non-useful. Oaktree b (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlopez2555, trimming or removing content like this is not "vandalism". I say this as a trans editor who is very familiar with transphobic vandalism on Wikipedia. Funcrunch (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete puff article. Pressing coverage at best, own journalistic/blog writings do not count towards notabilityGugrak (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Hannah Elyse Simpson". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  2. ^ "Israel's Right Turn Isn't an Excuse to Air Your Anti-Semitism". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  3. ^ "How Should We Respond? We Have to Love Our Lives Even More (Video)". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  4. ^ "Chicago's Creating Change Conference Was a Mess". www.advocate.com. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  5. ^ Simpson, Hannah. "Beyond Transamerica: The Stories You Missed This Year". www.refinery29.com. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  6. ^ "Governor Cuomo Lights The Night For Trans Visibility, And You Probably Missed It". HuffPost. 2017-04-03. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  7. ^ "10 Transgender Plagues Of Passover -- Collapsing Parted Seas And Gender Binaries". HuffPost. 2017-04-10. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  8. ^ "I Am A Transgender Zionist & An Anti-Israel Ambush Won't Stop Me". Bustle. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  9. ^ Simpson, Hannah. "Reintroducing yourself on Yom Kippur". blogs.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  10. ^ Simpson, Hannah (2016-11-11). "Trans people are terrified of what lies ahead. We must look out for one another". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
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 14:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecodan[edit]

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

Not a notable topic. It is written like an advertisement, and most of the page is unsourced. 𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 14:17, 21 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 14:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Food Detectives[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2017 DonaldD23 talk to me 03:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 21 April 2023 (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 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William R. McGuiness[edit]

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

This subject was a state judge on a regional (non-statewide) mid-level appellate court. No indication that this meets WP:NPOL, and this has been a one-line stub referenced for many years solely to the subject's non-independent state biography. BD2412 T 13:44, 21 April 2023 (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 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 As-Suwayda clashes[edit]

2022 As-Suwayda clashes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2023 (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 14:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Khashab shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2023 (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 14:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Damascus bus bombing[edit]

2021 Damascus bus bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2023 (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 14:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021 Israeli missile strikes in Syria[edit]

February 2021 Israeli missile strikes in Syria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2023 (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 . Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Democratic Socialist Club[edit]

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

Single ref on the page with only passing reference to the subject. I see various potential sources that look to be reliable but are only passing mentions. I don't see anything substantial that meets the GNG or NORG JMWt (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously trying to suggest that an article in an academic journal by the leading historian Sir Brian Howard Harrison FBA who was only six at the time the organisation in question disappeared is not a reliable independent source? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he may well be reliable but it is debatable if he is independent when attempting to find sources to show notability. It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that an academic who is close to the subject (in terms of working at Oxford Uni) believes it to be important because they have a connection. Absolutely understandable but perhaps those who are not closely associated with Oxford University think that we need more than one Don writing about a small part of the history of the students of that institution to show that it meets the notability standards. JMWt (talk) 11:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no shortage of sources here: they are just mostly books and sometimes a little hard to track down. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been tagged for notability for many years. It is now important that we have RS that consensus agrees meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I have added five reliable sources since the AFD started. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:23, 21 April 2023 (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 A Low Down Dirty Shame (soundtrack). Star Mississippi 14:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get the Girl, Grab the Money and Run[edit]

Get the Girl, Grab the Money and Run (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NSONG. Sources in article are database and stats. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject - the single - directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  13:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Low Down Dirty Shame (soundtrack): The one other piece of usable coverage I could find was this single review written by Larry Flick for Billboard. While it was a nice find, that alone does not reach notability standards. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:43, 21 April 2023 (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 . Absolutely nothing wrong with the nomination, and the reality is sources are an issue for someone who played a century ago. However consensus has emerged that there is sufficient sourcing on which to build an article. Star Mississippi 14:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ryan (footballer)[edit]

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

Notability tag was removed without improvement. WP:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. There's not enough in-depth coverage to do that, and searches did not reveal any, so fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability tag is a concern. As a main driver and author of what is now referred to as the GNG it feels like the idea behind the GNG has got lost. We're here to build an encyclopedia, a repository of knowledge, and we should be discussing the way this article informs people rather than whether it meets a subjective set of wording. That was the idea behind notability, that we ensure that we hold the information to account, that we ensure that we engage with each other and peer review what we do. We shouldn't be tagging an article and not leaving a message on talk about why; specifically, not engaging with the idea behind what Wikipedia is. It's open, it's collaborative, it's informative. Show the harm in the article. Then think about Summary Style and organisational theory. How does the encyclpedia fit, is a link to a separate page better and more concise than information subsumed into a larger entity, harder to find and link to? Choose what's best for the purpose, for the reader, for the knowledge. Hiding T 22:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a problem with what GNG is now or with our requirement that athletes meet it, take it up at vpp. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Umm @Alvaldi: However you did find one source on your first search which tells us there was something to find, I said inclined to keep, on the possibility, you kinda helped there. It's not a far ask to believe in the possibility of other offline sources!! Govvy (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy There is a massive leap from having a single unsignificant line to your name to having multiple significant sources over a significant period of time to it. If this and a couple of mentions of a Ryan in match reports is everything we can find, then there is is absolutely no indications that the individual was notable. Alvaldi (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stats >> 1.  "Ryan, Charles William" (PDF). Retrieved 7 April 2023.
  • Mention, routine sports annoucement, no SIGCOV >> 2. ^ "London Flashlights on amateurs and amateur doings". Football Chat and Athletic World. 4 September 1906. p. 2. Retrieved 22 April 2023 – via British Newspaper Archive. Charles Ryan, the Nunhead centre-half, has signed a professional form for Crystal Palaceclosed access
  • Name listed, stats, no SIGCOV >> 3. ^ *King, Ian (2012). Crystal Palace: The Complete Record 1905-2011. Derby Books Publishing Company Limited. pp. 550–1. ISBN 978-1-78091-221-9.
Keep votes provided no sources or guidelines.
BEFORE showed nothing but stats and listings, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject direct and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  11:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pen picture of C.W. Ryan article in Athletic Chat is rather detailed and the article in The Peterborough and Hunts Standard is not great, not terrible. Changing my !vote to Weak keep. Alvaldi (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2023 (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 14:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niggs Creek, Tennessee[edit]

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

Geographical feature, without demonstration of notability per WP:NPLACE; draftified but quickly moved back to mainspace without adequate improvement. To avoid 'move-warring' a discussion is now needed. 'Naive' search does not reveal additional SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2023 (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 . Joyous! Noise! 03:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe A. Hanson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources in the article are 1) Primary by author, 2) Mention in diagram credits, 3) Primary by author. Before showed nothing from WP:IS, WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth and there appear to be no reviews of their work.  // Timothy :: talk  12:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without links or explanation for acronyms such as GNG, BIO, and SIGCOV, I cannot fully understand why this article fails to meet community norms. To make these criteria legible please define them or link to their definition. I trust that these criteria are important, but from this side of the fence, this comment is simply insider gate keeping. Average-cyanobacteria (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added links.  // Timothy :: talk  18:56, 21 April 2023 (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 . Joyous! Noise! 03:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Cost Accounts Service[edit]

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

Contested draft without a single in-depth reference from an independent source. Searches turned up mentions, but no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see the pdf file published by Ministry of Finance, Government of India on this link https://cac.gov.in/PDF%20Material/Brochure.pdf which may serve as a reliable in depth reference. News references will be available in the form of recruitment to Indian Cost Accounts Service (ICoAS) or transfer/postings of officers(Ex.https://www.indianbureaucracy.com/kanav-dua-icoas-transferred-to-office-of-chief-adviser-cost/ ). ICoAS is a Central Civil Service under the Indian Government. Similar articles pertaining to other Central Civil Services under the Government of India is available on Wikipedia (Ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Audit_and_Accounts_Service , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Civil_Accounts_Service etc.). As such, the article may be retained. 117.202.199.96 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2023 (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 Owl City discography#Studio albums. ✗plicit 03:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Moon[edit]

Coco Moon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLARed this but it was undone so now we're here. To quote my reasoning from before:

Outside of charting, this page sources only to the band's social media and press releases from the site PMStudio, which I believe to be a wholly unreliable source. I found no other coverage for this record, and the charting alone is insufficient to meet WP:NALBUM.

As it stands, the article has not changed since then aside from a couple adjusted time stamps. I still stand by PMStudio being unreliable and even brought up a query about it here. My vote is to restore the redirect I made earlier, though if anyone wants to take what's here and expand the prose in Owl City#2022–present: Return of Owl City and Coco Moon then that would be an even better target. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.easyrock.com.ph/news/owl-city-announces-new-album-coco-moon/
https://www.argusleader.com/story/opinion/voices/2023/03/27/owl-city-wrote-a-6-minute-song-about-rapid-city-south-dakota-dinosaur-park-skyline-drive-coco-moon/70051769007/
https://news3lv.com/news/local/owl-city-to-perform-at-brooklyn-bowl-in-las-vegas-this-fall-nevada-tickets-on-sale-friday-augustana-fireflies-you-would-not-believe-your-eyes-october-6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shout4Serenity (talk • contribs) 06:46, April 14, 2023 (UTC)
  • The first and third links are both based on press releases so are essentially WP:PRIMARY. That's the same issue as with PMStudio. The Argus Leader article, however, looks to be quite useful. Good find. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Argus Leader is the only review I can find. Is one review enough for MUSIC? Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you're talking about the article linked above, that's about just one song and hardly mentions the album beyond the one track. And generally, I've seen a lot of albums with single reviews from much more notable publications (especially AllMusic) die in AfDs, so I'm gonna say no. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, I guess it's a delete for me then, for the lack of sourcing/reviews of the album Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something something WP:ATD-R means redirecting is preferred so the delete vote can essentially be substituted with a redirect vote as well or however that works (or @Oaktree b could just throw explicit support behind redirecting as an option). As for the target, Owl City discography#Studio albums might be the better of the two since it already also mentions the album charting and users can navigate more quickly to other releases from there.
It is also worth noting that no new coverage appears to have come in for this album and it is now nearly a month old so I doubt any more reviews will be cropping up. Unless it hits a sudden sales spike and charts far more impressively, or makes a bunch of mid-year best albums lists in a few weeks, I don't see this reaching notability anytime soon. Keepability seems like a complete non-question to me, regardless of what other option we end up with. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://popcrush.com/owl-city-the-tornado-screamo-reactions/ Shout4Serenity (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2023 (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 Prayagraj#Police administration. Joyous! Noise! 03:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prayagraj Police Commissionerate[edit]

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

Another contested redirect without improvement. Zero in-depth coverage from independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Rai[edit]

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

Likely to fail WP:NACTOR/WP:GNG

Not to be confused with Alisha Rai (author). KH-1 (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2023 (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 Ghaziabad#Law and order. Joyous! Noise! 03:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaziabad Police Commissionerate[edit]

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

Another contested redirect without improvement. Gets mentions, but can't find enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:05, 21 April 2023 (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 Shoolagiri. ✗plicit 11:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady Of Velankanni Church, Shoolagiri[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability, sources are not independent or not indepth. Fram (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2023 (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 (withdrawn by nominator). Clear consensus to keep this.‎ . (non-admin closure) Joseph2302 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League records and statistics[edit]

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

This is a massively overdetailed WP:NOTSTATS violations, every single table is just a copy of ESPNcricinfo data, rather than sources showing why these stats are necessary for a separate article. And we also have most of the same stats for each team individually in separate articles such as List of Chennai Super Kings records, so there's literally no point duplicating this content with more additional random stats in a complete IPL stats mess article. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fact that we can make encyclopedic content about the Cricket World Cup statistics doesn't mean that we can make encyclopedic content out of IPL stats. WP:OSE. Also, the team ones are relevant, because this is just duplication of them, we don't need both sets of duplicating statistics. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Where did you get the idea that this is a duplication of team stats. Suppose, KKR have recorded the highest ever team total (by any team) in IPL. Then, can a random reader find this record or know about the highest total in IPL match by going to the stats page of CSK or any other team. Team records stay within the team. While this list is a collection of full IPL tournament stats, who is the overall highest run-scorer, highest wicket-taker etc... And as said, IPL records have plenty of coverage in news articles or other websites. RoboCric (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPA. Yes, I understand how cricket stats work, you can disagree with me without questioning my competency. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, most people use Wikipedia for information purposes, so why do they want to waste time by scrolling random websites?
In international cricket there are also different pages for overall international records and team records, but I don't think you understand that both are different. That's why you consider articles for deletion. Bhargavkc0089 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2023 (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 05:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Abbas Mousavi Motlagh[edit]

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

Not obviously elected (not sure what an activist or observer of the Guardian Council is; it has clerics and jurists, and he is neither), nor is their obvious evidence of significant coverage in other forms, such as significant international reporting, from a WP:GNG perspective; just some local stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keeppasses N:POL as an appointed member of a key constitutional body in Iran. Being appointed rather than elected doesn’t matter. Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies you’re quite right and I misread the article. He’s not a member of the GC so is not an NPOL pass at all. He just seems to be some kind of commentator. He may pass GNG but I’d need to look at the sources more closely. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh and he’s got 99 followers on Twitter. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a ringing endorsement. I might even have that much on my long dormant account. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Farsi news sources seem fairly trivial. It looks like he's authored books for sure, but without evidence of some serious reviews, I can't see how we can qualify WP:AUTHOR. If even the Farsi draft was abandoned, that's a bit telling. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article is ineligible for soft deletion due to a previously contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:24, 21 April 2023 (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 Stanford University#School of Engineering. History remains for whatever needs merging. Star Mississippi 14:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford University Computer Science[edit]

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

Shouldn't this be merged as well, just like the similar departmental articles such as [Stanford Department of Electrical Engineering ] and [Stanford University School of Engineering]. These were discussed in AFD and the results were "merge." Similar action should be performed on this too. X (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't opened this discussion, you could have done that BOLDLY and used AfD as a fallback if you encountered pushback. Just sayin'. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2023 (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 Palpatine#Family tree. ✗plicit 11:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine family[edit]

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

Incredibly niche article of very little interest even to Star Wars fans. Entirely sourced by primary sources and non-reliable sources. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 06:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ by an Admin per WP:G4. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Coach Henry E.V.K[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Coach Henry E.V.K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted via deletion discussion on April 13, 2023. It was nominated for CSD as a trivial recreation of a page previously deleted via discussion. Improbably, that CSD was contested. So now we're here. Just like last time, the page fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. There is a single short article in the Daily Trust that does not meet "significant" coverage and is not "multiple" sources. "Beautiful Arewa" does not appear to be a reliable source (appears to be a blog at best). The remainder of the sources are just links to tracks on Apple Music which are not reliable sources. Google does not bring up any missing sources, nor does there appear to be any new material since the last deletion discussion. Delete and salt. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:59, 21 April 2023 (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 Maximum the Hormone. ✗plicit 11:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nao Kawakita[edit]

Nao Kawakita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Daisuke Tsuda (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Futoshi Uehara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ryo Kawakita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Not finding any signs of independent notability. Her name comes up in articles about Maximum the Hormone but only in passing, and certain search terms bring up more results for the fluffy mascot who took her place one time a few years ago than for her. Unless she's getting more coverage in Japanese media that I don't have access to, I think this page should be redirected to the band's. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the additional nominations after my first vote, I think all four members can be redirected to Maximum the Hormone. Singer Daisuke Tsuda has some extra info of interest as the host of a radio show, but I will simply add that to the band's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:21, 24 April 2023 (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 . Discussion about the specific inclusion criteria of the list and a possible page move may be had at the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional frogs and toads[edit]

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

How does this list meet WP:LISTN? "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This does not appear to be the case, instead this is a list version of WP:NOTTVTROPES/WP:IPC. Not sure if anything here can be rescued into a merger with Frogs in culture. IF this is kept, then at minimum we should redirect the fork List of fictional frogs and toads in animation back here (and if this is not kept, that fork should suffer the same fate as the main list nominated here). PS. If this is kept, then it needs major gutting as many - most - entries here don't even adhere to the list official inclusion criteria ("It is restricted solely to notable frog and toad characters from notable works of fiction"), with plenty of red of black links to non-notable fictional frogs and toads. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don’t need lists for everything Dronebogus (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEEDED Dream Focus 16:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: As usual, I think this list has worth as an overview of appearances of the topic at Wikipedia (which would remain in parallel to the existance of a prose article). Thankfully, SilverTiger12 has already done a significant amount of cleanup :-). Daranios (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2023 (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 Tōmei Expressway. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotemba Interchange[edit]

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

Fails GNG, and an interchange like this is ordinary and would likely not have any additional sources. Rschen7754 05:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . I'm persuaded by those arguing for saving this article. The argument for those advocating deletion seems to rest on whether The Oregonian is a "local" or regional newspaper. Those arguing to Keep state that it is a major newspaper for Northwest U.S and I'm persuaded by their argument. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucier (restaurant)[edit]

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

A restaurant that only existed for 7 months. Fails GNG, coverage is only local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't overlooked or ignored the non-trivial articles, nor the dozens of new refbombs added today (the vast majority of which are indeed trivial and probably should be stricken as excessive coatracking) Whether X used to work there, or Y bought the building or Z is the new restaurant the owners opened lateris not notable. Such trivia is representative of how the restaurant could get over 100 Google hits in The Oregonian for a 7 months run.) None of these references establish notability for a purely local defunct eatery that cratered almost immediately after it opened. So, there are some longer restaurant reviews by local critics that the setting was spectacular, but the pricy food sucked. Again, that just doesn't establish notability. Banks Irk (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Banks Irk I would like to know, how were you able to review all of the paywalled Oregonian sources? I'm asking because I'm accessing them through the Oregonian archives via Multnomah County Library, which makes verification difficult for other users. There are quite a few in-depth profiles specifically about Lucier, which I'd like others to be able to access, too. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lexis-Nexis. You're wasting your time. 99 44/100% are completely trivial. The others are, as I wrote earlier, "it's being built... opening soon...finally opened", "pretty building, pricy food sucks", and "it closed (we're not surprised because the pricy food sucked)". A newspaper does not generate 100+ substantive articles on a restaurant that was only open 7 months. Banks Irk (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming. With all due respect, I strongly disagree. I find the amount of thorough coverage by multiple reporters quite impressive for a short-lived restaurant. We clearly see things differently, but I happen to think most editors who have access to these in-depth profiles would be inclined to vote keep. Seems I won't be able to sway your vote, so I'll move on to other things. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words: WP:AUD was mooted, what reason for deletion remains?☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the rationale is WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite an expansion of the literal words at WP:AUD. I don't even know how you would formulate that. How does one tell the difference between "local coverage" and "non-local coverage" from an indisputably regional or national source? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I don't understand Valereee's interpretation of AUD. The Oregonian is most definitely a regional publication and not "of limited interest and circulation". I'll reiterate my request to have a wider discussion about this (AUD vs GNG vs NCORP) instead of having this same debate over and over across dozens of AfDs. Also, Valereee, how long the business operated is irrelevant. What matters is sufficient secondary coverage, which Lucier has very clearly received. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I as well disagree strongly with this interpretation of WP:AUD. In addition, this guideline is about organizations and companies. A restaurant is a cultural institution beyond simply one company. ɱ (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if a restaurant opens in NYC with reviews published in The New York Times, The Villager, and AM New York Metro, none of those would meet WP:AUD, because they are published in the same location as the restaurant's locale, but if a review were published in New York Daily News it could count toward AUD because it's published in New Jersey?? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 03:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Up and Eat[edit]

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

A closed restaurant that only gets coverage in local media as per WP:AUD and fails GNG. There is in fact a restaurant of the same name in New Jersey. https://www.nj.com/food/2023/04/shut-up-and-eat-inside-njs-wackiest-restaurant-with-servers-in-pajamas-and-a-sea-of-kitsch.html LibStar (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2023 (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 . ✗plicit 03:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of locomotive classes[edit]

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

Is a random, far from complete, list of locomotives. E.g. under British Railways and Great Western Railways only 3 or 4 out of dozens are randomly mentioned. The list lacks structure with some of the section listing locomotives by manufacturer and other by operator and random individual locomotive articles.

Then there are whole continents that are not even mentioned (Africa) or only given minimal coverage (United States). There are plenty of Locomotive by manufacturer or Locomotive by country lists, combining them into one article that would have thousands of entries is not of much benefit to anyone. Only one cite is provided, that would only cover the Canadian section, but the article doesn’t have one, so effectively the list is uncited. Hoekiema (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't have list articles for every football stadium, railway station or school around the world because they would be too large and unweildly. Instead there are more manageable list articles with boundaries, e.g. by city or country, or in the case of locomotives, by builder or operator. If the article does remain it should solely be a list of lists, e.g Locomotives of the Great Western Railway, Locomotives of the London and North Eastern Railway etc, and not a list of individual locomotives as in the New Zealand Railways and Victorian Railways sections, each having 60 locomotives, and by global standards neither are big operators, so their would be even larger lists for others. There are thousands of locomotive classes globally, listing every single one in a list that would go for a mile would be of no real benefit. Hoekiema (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does sound like a better idea than making this page endlessly long. I'll make a separate list for the Australian locos (currently just Victorian Railways). -- ThylacineHunter (talk) 09:45, 22 April 2023 (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 House (season 6). Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Private Lives (House)[edit]

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:40, 21 April 2023 (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 House (season 6). Redirecting as an ATD. This is a common resolution in AFDs for articles about individual episodes of a TV series. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyrant (House)[edit]

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:40, 21 April 2023 (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 House (season 3). Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top Secret (House)[edit]

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there is only 1 RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:39, 21 April 2023 (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 House (season 3). Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning (House)[edit]

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

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:38, 21 April 2023 (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.
More