< March 31	April 02 >

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QubeTV[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been 6 years since a WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Disclaimer: I'm the primary author of the article.) The situation is essentially the same as with the prior nomination. There are multiple reliable sources focusing on the website. That the website is now defunct doesn't alter the notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another failed YouTube clone, and our standards have changed since 2009 so this doesn't pass N under current guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which aspect has changed since then that you see as as a relevant difference? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The two sources we have are the equivalent of WP:ITEXISTS without any further explanation (with the Daily Show mention clear opinion) and there was no follow up or additional sources added. Nate • (chatter) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? The Washington Times article includes specific discussion about the goals, and dicusses the founders and their motivation. Similarly the Richmond article has a lot more than just existence. I'm struggling to see what aspect here is somehow different not about the general notability criterion. (And since ITEXISTS was an existing argument to avoid since well before 2009, that hasn't changed either.) JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is not too much coverage to meet notability. It's defunct anyway, so no one is really going to be reading about it.Royal88888 (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DEFUNCT is a specific policy. Something being defunct is not a valid deletion argument. Notability is not temporary. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Has been 6 years since a GNG was raised" is not a thing. If the subject was deemed notable six years ago, then it's still notable; articles aren't re-reviewed every six years. There is no deletion rationale for this nomination, and it should be withdrawn. Re: Royal88888, "no one is really going to be reading about it" is also not a deletion rationale. See WP:ATA, specifically WP:DEFUNCT. Toughpigs (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Striking, misread the nomination as "6 years since the last AfD nomination".[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see coverage of this site; there is a channel on Youtube using the name, that appears to be a network from India. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peinnegon (15°58′N 98°21′E)[edit]

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

Attempted to verify location for disambiguating: there is no Peinnegon in this coordinate location or near Kyeikdon. Google Maps does label the village but this village at this location is not recognized by the General Administration Department according to this MIMU map or the place codes database. Related to this may be: Peinnegon (16°22′N 98°19′E), which is in both sources and nearby Peinhneseik (formerly at "Peinnegon (16°15′N 98°21′E)"). Based on these I don't believe this particular Peinnegon village exists nor would it meet WP:GEOLAND. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Can't even find the google maps label for some reason. Please ping me if other sources are found. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to give this the opportunity for more people to weigh in,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no objection to any statements made by nominator Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orange creamsicle cake[edit]

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete - it is a recipe that is repeated in many books and newspapers but I think we really need more than this to !keep. Maybe someone has written about the history and significance of this cake, but I'm not seeing it. JMWt (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Based on keep rationales back both this and the original AfD nom back in 2010, Valley2city (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC) Valley2city (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt cake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated for deletion back in 2010 where it was decided to keep the article, but I'm renominating it as the sources do not hold up. As to Niteshift36's analysis of the sources way back when: "Sources 1 and 3 are the same one, and doesn't even give a full recipe. It only gives a one sentence description. Source 2 is solely a recipe. Source 4 is the recipe and a woman talking about her personal experience with it". These sources are not enough to establish notability and a WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure what the notability for food items are... I can find recipes [1], but I'm not sure that's enough "discussion" of the thing the article is about. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that there aren't special notability guidelines for food articles, so they should be judged against WP:GNG. This isn't official guideline, but Wikiproject Food and Drink has discussed this notability issue in the past. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recipes cannot be considered as coverage because every dish has a recipe. It's about the context in which the recipes became popular (star chef, regional cuisine, etc.). Killarnee (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike your other recent food nominations I've supported, I think this one does have more coverage as a recognizable, distinct dish rather than just recipes involving a particular ingredient. Moreover, even though there are some variations, it's a clear concept and I don't see another article it would be covered in. Sources include Oreo coming out with a dirt cake flavor [2], a Guinness record for largest dirt cake [3], and bakeries' dirt cakes served in pots. On newspapers.com, I see results dating to 1988! There are older ones calling a similar recipe "cinder cake". Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the new Oreo flavor source, but felt that it wasn't significant enough coverage to warrant an article, but I didn't see the other sources you've provided. I think the three you've presented along with a few more articles that I found on newspapers.com (thank you for this suggestion, I personally haven't tried newspaper.com before this), should be enough to prove this dessert's notability. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources seem fine, we have a bit more context and some description of the type of cake being used in other food products. Notability for food products is a new thing for me. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Montgomery County shootings[edit]

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

Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, they are all from December 2014. There is no evidence of lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pennsylvania. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though the sources are all from about the same time period, there was a substantial amount of SIGCOV nationally making this a pretty high-profile event. I wouldn't necessarily expect to see much additional coverage after the event itself, there's not much to add, though a quick search did turn up at least one additional article from the following year: Recovering from tragedy, one year after the Bradley Stone murders. nf utvol (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage isn't too sustained, admittedly, but, there were two 1-year anniversary retrospectives to this (one linked above, other here), plus this 2016 article about how it was a big investigation, plus it seems to have spawned significant commentary at the time due to the circumstances surrounding the event related to veterans care and domestic violence, which makes me feel this information should be retained in some form. There is a mention of it in a 2018 journal article on mental health of veterans and in a 2015 book, but it's paywalled so I'm unable to tell if it's a passing mention or not. The coverage was international and did have quite a bit of commentary beyond run-of-the-mill "this happened" reporting, which is far more than most of these things get, so, eh? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Highly significant and heavily covered event. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @PARAKANYAA Killuminator (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Rawalpindi suicide bombing[edit]

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

All the coverage is from January 2014. No lasting impacts or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (add the sources, basically)/redirect to its entry at Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2014#January, where this is mentioned already. if this article is deleted without the sources being added the entry is unsourced. Also redirects are cheap. Also, obligatory "it's pakistan so if later sources exist they're probably not in english/hard to find" PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The page history is preserved and could be hey'ed on a later date. Geschichte (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liam McLaughlin (baseball)[edit]

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

A low-level college baseball player lacking significant independent sources. The prod was removed by the creator. User:Namiba 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Connecticut. User:Namiba 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of independent sources that discuss him in significant depth renders the subject non-notable at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even by the nonsensical standards nowadays where minor leaguers are more notable than major leaguers, this one is nowhere near GNG. Wizardman 23:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting athletic notability, I don't see notability for the esports colour commentator position either. What's given is simply confirmation of a college athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The sources are either routine namedrops or are primary. Let'srun (talk) 18:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in Depth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Leonard Retel Helmrich. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarabeefilms[edit]

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

Frankly I'm struggling to find WP:SIGCOV for this film company. Since it is an organization it must pass WP:NORG. There's some one-off mentions in books but nothing really about the company itself. nlwiki doesn't help either as there is no article on the company there and lots of the articles there on the films are unsourced. It has also been unsourced since 2011. Should reliable sourcing be found I'll gladly withdraw this. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Netherlands. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs expansion and updating, for sure. For a company that has produced so many award-winning documentaries and movies, secondary sources are indeed in short supply. For now, I added a couple of references, enough to sustain my vote, I hope.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an NCORP failure to Leonard Retel Helmrich, its prime movie director and one of the company's principals, who presently has an article. gidonb (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - fails SIGCOV Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leonard Retel Helmrich: The co-founder was redirected here and since this article lacks SIGCOV (even though I can see three reliable sources that is not convincing). There is a need for WP: PRESERVE —which is redirecting again to the co-founder whose article on is still existent. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nahal International Short Film Festival[edit]

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

Does not seem to have adequate attestation in either English- or Farsi-language reliable sources. Remsense诉 22:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not right, because, first of all, I've already added multiple reliable sources from top Persian newspapers. This festival is socially important for the participation of famous Persian directors (read the corresponding paragraph in the article). Secondly, the notability of this article is very significant, for this article has got quite a large number of readers among Persians who're interested in cinema. In other words, the nomination for deletion in the current case is definitely your mistake. I sincerely hope that the audience, desiring the article to exist, is going to support me, despite very many obstacles. I also wish the enlightened and cultivated gentlemen among the administrators to support me as soon as possible, for, the present-day nomination for deletion flagrantly violates WP:N and WP:V. Роман Сергеевич Сидоров (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the news sources

used as reference in the article. By Further investigation, it is found that most of the article references are state-run newspapers and news agencies affiliated with Iran's national television. :

IRNA news agency

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_News_Agency

Mehr news agency

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehr_News_Agency

Iranian Youth Cinema Society

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Youth_Cinema_Society

Ifilm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFilm_(TV_channel)

Kayhan news agency

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayhan

In addition, it seems that IRNA and Kayhan are among the most reputable and old newspapers in Iran, whose use of their site pages as a reference is reliable.

Reference media sites:

https://en.irna.ir/

https://en.mehrnews.com/

https://iycs.ir/

https://en.ifilmtv.ir/

https://kayhan.ir/en

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_News_Agency

خبرگزاری مهر

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehr_News_Agency

انجمن سینمای جوان

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Youth_Cinema_Society

آی فیلم

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IFilm_(TV_channel)

خبرگزاری کیهان

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayhan 2A01:5EC0:2FE0:34:3CC5:A0FF:FE06:24E6 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources were checked once again.There doesn't seem to be a problem. The mentioned news agencies are approved 31.7.116.37 (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - satisfies GNG. It is obvious that in a country like Iran, there will be less sources on Farsi language about a Film Festival compared to USA. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MuJoCo[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. No independent sources of any type,, much less GNG sources. The only sources are two self-descriptions by the creator. Their paper and then their comments when open-sourcing it. In a search I found no even medium-depth coverage North8000 (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't understand the nomination. I find quite a few hits in a Google search, plus a fair amount of activity on the GitHub page. It is now an open source code, supported by Google Mind with a GitHub at mujoco so presumably will be around for a bit. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a hint at a good argument. Could you elaborate? North8000 (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure exactly what you want me to elaborate on; I don't use that program although some of my research has come close to multiphysics codes so I know them vaguely. All I can say is that the GitHub has both updates as well as people asking questions etc, so it is not fake or dead. Plus there is some coverage out there. I think it would be harsh to delete it, it appears to be genuine open-source code that people use and (hopefully?) will continue to be improved. Of course it could be revisited in a few years to check. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triggered by the overview that you provided I did an extra hard search. Still couldn't find a GNG type source but I found some writeups on web pages that might come close. I added them as external links with edit summaries that they are possible references. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick look this morning. According to Google Scholar, the first paper has been cited 5329 and the term MuJoCo 9250. If this was an academic then having a single paper cited this many times would pass WP:NACADEMIC criteria #C1. Probably some of the papers that cite it provide more information, I found one and added it. However this software is too far beyond my area of expertise so I am not willing to add more. If you are sufficiently versed in the area please go ahead, otherwise it might be wise to post to a project (or three) and hope that someone who is will respond. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the additional info from the above, I would have considered this to be an edge case during NPP (maybe with a bit of wp:IAR) and passed it. North8000 (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North8000, just to be clear, are you withdrawing your nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending it as a "weigh in" with obvious impact while we see if someone else weighs in. But at this point I think it's better / simpler to call it a withdrawal, so that it is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Castellón[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing a way to verify the information and it seems way beyond the point where there needs to be verified information from RS to keep the page JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Spain. JMWt (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As one might expect, there are adequately referenced articles in other language Wikipedias. These references from https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Castell%C3%B3_d%27Emp%C3%BAries might be helpful:
- Minali, Guillelmo. Historia militar de Gerona, que comprende particularmente los dos sitios de 1808 y 1809 (en castellà). A. Figaró, 1840, p.59-60.
- «1-1-1809 Sorpresa de Castellón» (en castellà). www.1808-1814.org. [Consulta: 16 agost 2011].
- Ferrer, Raymundo. Barcelona cautiva, ó sea Diario exacto de lo ocurrido en la misma ciudad mientras la oprimieron los Franceses, esto es, desde el 13 de Febrero de 1808 hasta el 28 de Mayo de 1814 Acompañta a los principios de cada mes una Idea del estado religiosa-politico-militar de Barcelona y Cataluña (en castellà). Brusi, 1816, p. vol.3, p.94.
- Crusafont i Sabater, Miquel. Medalles commemoratives dels Països Catalans i de la Corona catalano-aragonesa: (S. XV-XX). Institut d'Estudis Catalans, 2006, p.152. ISBN 8472838641. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok please use these refs to verify all the claims on the page and remove anything unsupported per WP:V

I'm interested in seeing what these references actually support on the topic. JMWt (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources @Eastmain: found cover the battle well enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrrs0 (talk • contribs) 16:31, April 3, 2024 (UTC)
Keep per applied sources. BusterD (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni[edit]

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

None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard-[4]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After relinquishing sources that are either poor or fail WP:V and in non-english language, two sources by historians Autar Singh Sandhu and Bobby Singh Bansal look OK to me where both pass WP:HISTRS. I cannot tell if Bansal is self proclaimed historian from what little quick research I found on him. Raj era is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators. Some of these are like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. I found a source by Autar Singh Sandhu published in 1987 that too has coverage on this event on page 79 of book [5], General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire. Many other historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expected as much from you. Bobby Singh Bansal by no means passes WP:HISTRS, he has zero educational background or training in history, nor does he have any peer reviewed books or journals to his name. His books were all self published. In fact, his current profession is a city councillor. This article makes it abundantly clear that the term "historian" was a self conferred title based on interests as opposed to any educational background.

Autar Singh Sandhu did not publish any book in 1987, the Google Books link your provided is not Autar Singh Sandhu's original work, but rather a reprint by a different publisher. Google Book links are also known to be notoriously unreliable with publication dates. And it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone who wrote a book in 1935-[6], would then write another book on the same subject, 54 years later. There is hardly any information available about Autar Singh Sandhu, apart from the fact that he wrote one book in 1935 about Hari Singh Nalwa; thoroughly unreliable. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anjali Roy commented on Bansal's documentary, which was not related to historical claims, but rather on the Sikhs in Afghanistan who recently immigrated to the UK. Himadri Banarjee cited a newspaper column written by Bansal, not his books-[7]. You must also be aware that even if a source is used as reference in a reliable secondary source, it does not automatically make that source reliable by association, it must be judged on its own merits; Khafi Khan is cited hundreds of times in various books, but he cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
don't know who Khafi Khan is but if not a secondary source or from 20th century and beyond then inarguably Khafi Khan would be unreliable but not the ones in discussion here. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:HISTRS carefully. "Historical scholarship is generally not: Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs" as well the section "What is "recent" scholarship in history?". In the case of Autar Singh Sandhu, an admin has already determined that 1935 is far too old coupled with the lack of academic reviews and scholarly works by the author. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jadunath Sarkar sources are used that are as old and its because historians today depend on his secondary work and it is same case with Sandhu. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few cites in later books is nowhere near a mitigating factor since scholarly books cite a large corpus of all sorts of work nor does it prove that historians relied on him in any substantive manner. If that was the case, entering Autar Singh Sandhu's name on the Internet would return far more in depth details and reviews of his work as is the case for Jadunath Sarkar who has an entire Britannica article dedicated to him, as opposed to one Internet archive link to a book. If you insist he is reliable; please provide at the very least one actual scholarly review of his work or at least one other book he authored outside of Hari Singh Nalwa.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandhu is in bibliography and notes of other historians. Maybe not wide known like Jadunath Sarkar but in wikipedia you can use scholarly works where possible and if scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works can be used. I have my vote and let's give others space to weigh in with votes too. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions in bibliographies is not included as a factor in WP:HISTRS, things like the educational background of the author, whether the work was published by an academic/scholarly institution, and scholarly reviews of the book (regardless of whether the source is an academic or popular work) are. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Jfire (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elmo Live[edit]

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

All current sources are either primary or unreliable. Only one source found via WP:BEFORE [8]. Tickle Me Elmo is not a good merge topic as they are fundamentally different products. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Toys. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I found four newspaper articles about this highly-anticipated and widely-discussed toy. I'll list the articles below, and I'll add them to the page in a little bit. Toughpigs (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mattel gambles on pricey Elmo", Wall Street Journal wire service, published in the Arizon Republic (Oct 11, 2008)
- "Mattel unveils its latest Elmo", The Saskatchewan Leader-Post (Feb 16, 2008)
- "Red alert!", Asbury Park Press (Aug 8, 2008)
- "Tickled to See Ya: Latest interactive Elmo Live sings, tell jokes, sits and chats", New York Daily News (Feb 15, 2008)

This is very impressive, well done. I am going to Withdraw per WP:HEYMANN. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hocke[edit]

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

Working actor, but I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG, though lots of unreliable sources. Currently an unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was trying to take off an argument to the nominator Boleyn. After running BEFORE, it's simple to conclude that he has appeared in notable films but not lead roles which makes it difficult to find sources about his roles; thus, doesn't imply for NACTOR and NENT per nominator! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natali Germanotta[edit]

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

This article is about Lady Gaga's sister Natalie, which is where the problem lies for a biographical article. It does not establish independent notability WP:N for this subject as by virtue of her sister's fame and notoriety, every source alluding to Natalie is actually focused on Gaga mainly with Natalie as highlighted mention. This can easily be deleted and its contents merged in the main Lady Gaga article and bits and bobs into respective song articles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you'd be hard pressed to find a ref that exclusively focuses on Natali without largely revolving around having a Gaga connection, even in those where she is the main subject like a Teen Vogue interview (which doesn't count towards notability when this is a primary source) or a Women's Health list of facts (which explicitly talks about how Ms. Germanotta doesn't wish to be in the spotlight nearly as much as her sister has been). Some sources just rehash the former and don't really cut it either. WP:BIOFAMILY notes that being related to someone famous doesn't by itself entitle someone to their own article. I don't see a need to merge anything when all pertinent information is already included in Stefani's bio and tour/residency pages. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see enough coverage about her career in fashion to have an article. [9] is typical, either celebrity fluff articles or just about anything Lady Gaga does where she's involved. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply inherent notability which is not WP:GNG! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Contributor892z (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sources sufficient to pass notability guidelines demonstrated to exist 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Babouvism[edit]

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

Unless there is further sourcing/examples of Neo-Babouvism as an ideology outside of Gracchus Babeuf (and supposed 1848 neo-Jacobin revolutionaries that I will assume is true despite a notable lack of source), the ideology's page should be deleted, or atleast redirected to Gracchus Babeuf Marissa TRS (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NEXIST; term frequently used amongst theorists (eg Balibar see p.132) and historians (eg Hobsbawn see p.25) to characterise currents in revolutionary communist politics from the 1830s (especially in France, but also Belgium). There's a three page (pp.43-45) discussion of Neo-Babouvism in Erik van Ree's Boundaries of Utopia - Imagining Communism from Plato to Stalin (Routledge:2015); one page (pp.174-175) in Sander Gilman's Yale Companion to Jewish Writing and Thought in German Culture, 1096-1996 (Yale UP:1997); Stéphanie Roza's chapter "Communist and Neo-Babouvist readings of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution" in Remembering Early Modern Revolutions England, North America, France and Haiti (Routledge:2018). This from just a few minutes in Google Books in English, in French (where the term néo-babouvisme is extremely widespread), here's just two: Gilbert Achcar, "Libéralisme et néo-babouvisme aux sources du marxisme" (Liberalism and neo-babouvism as roots of Marxism), L'Homme et la société (1999:132-133), pp. 53-80 or Alain Maillard's 352 page book from 1999 entitled: La Communauté des Egaux. Le communisme néo-babouviste dans la France des années 1840 (The Community of Equals: Neo-Babouvist Communism in 1840s France). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Procedural keep. This page is a redirect now and it doesn't appear that either this redirect or the target article were actually tagged for an AFD discussion. It's not a good idea to nominate a heavily edited article for an AFD deletion primarily because of the rapid changes that are occurring to the article over the next 7 days. Over the course of a week, it is unlikely to resemble the state of the article when it was nominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Mohammad Reza Zahedi[edit]

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

Not enough material to have its own article. Should be moved to Mohammad Reza Zahedi. Ecrusized (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Iran, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 21:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2031 FIBA Basketball World Cup[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON clearly applies. No apparent reason for this article to exist yet. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Italy, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON and unlikely to get third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Article about an event over 5 years in the making. I understand some events like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup, but the basketball cup does not have the notability to be created so early. Svartner (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates in the 2010 Cook Islands general election by electorate[edit]

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

There is no reason for this article when all candidates are already listed in the main article (2010 Cook Islands general election). Yilku1 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Politics. Yilku1 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally would make at least an ATD request but this is unnecessarily duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a complete duplication, it contains information indicating the status of incumbents and their time in the seat, which is not present in the election article. However, agree separate articles not necessary, but perhaps a merge would be better? (Re)Pinging @IdiotSavant: the article creator of both articles (who is active at present), to hear their views. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates info in the main article. I'd need to look at other articles int he same series to see how they're marking incumbency, but it seems easy to do. Also, pinging @Number 57:, who is maintaining Cook islands elections ATM. --IdiotSavant (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicating content of 2010 Cook Islands general election. IdiotSavant I've added notes to the election article to mark the incumbents either being re-elected or losing their seats. Cheers, Number 5 7 08:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete kudos to Number 57 and IdiotSavant for quick responses. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Given that the nominator has presented a keep argument, and there are no other delete arguments, this would also qualify for speedy keep. Therefore consensus is that the topic meets the relevant SNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustika Ibu[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find any notable coverage of this film, or anything beyond a few passing references at film festivals and what I believe are excerpts of the biography and a coverage at a film festival. Hence there may a weak WP:NFILM (3.) case here but given the problems of the award show [here] I don't think it is enough to establish notability criterion. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The Indonesian Film Festival awards appear to be enough for NFILM 3. It's very likely that this also has SIGCOV in offline sources. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant awards. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, Indonesian Film Festival is significant award ceremony, but yea... given this film is released almost 50 years ago, looking for online references for this movie is really challenging. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons given so far, understanding also Ckfasdf point JarrahTree 05:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the general consensus what this would be covered by WP:NFILM 3. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MENAFN[edit]

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

no sourcing. This article has long confused MENAFN and Mena report, and all the sources were about the latter. There does not appear to be notability for MENAFN. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, Jordan, and Delaware. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. This article's history is problematic. From the beginning, the subject was confused with late-blooming competitor Mena Report, and as a result of that was redirected to that entity's parent company. The redirect was subsequently listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#MENAFN, at the end of which it was restored to article status based upon it being a separate entity. Although the origin information was finally corrected today, independent coverage of this website does not appear to exist outside of its own postings. Havradim leaf a message 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of city name changes[edit]

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

WP:SALAT: this is an infinitely expandable list, there have been an uncountable number of city name changes in history and there will always be more happening in the future. Wikipedia is not a database for listing every city name change that has ever happened. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list should be trimmed to exclude those with minor orthographical changes (many of those in Indonesia for example) but this is a valid list as well as navigation page since many countries have their lists split into subpages. I don't think this is "infinitely expandable" at all, though you're welcome propose narrower inclusion criteria. There is an old discussion at Talk:List_of_city_name_changes#Scope_of_this_page that removed natural evolution of names and proposed having only deliberate changes to wholly new names. Even including other types listed this is by no means indiscriminate or inappropriate for Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 17:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If too in depth, erect rails. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? —Tamfang (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reywas92, and by not being completely convinced WP:SALAT applies as this can easily be broken out further. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Name changes are very notable events that can happen to a major city. Possibly a better inclusion criteria is required to improve the article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given. The size of the list is not a reason to delete it. Any list that grow too large, just split off into different list. Dream Focus 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, if some sections get too long then they can be split off into sub-lists, like for many sections now. Dank Jae 08:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic and it actually prevents editors from creating various content forks. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zayaan Ismail Shareef[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG Particleshow22 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Maldives. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Llamas with Hats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This entire page uses only primary sources (mostly to the YouTube videos themselves). There's absolutely nothing to indicate notability, and the page would essentially need to be rewritten from scratch to be halfway decent. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We had about a dozen sources in the last AfD when it was a !keep. Same sources this time, plus this one [10]. I don't see what's changed in the last few years, when we identified enough sources last time. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Irish Times piece on the page, and existing sources (some identified during the last Afd) prove it is notable. I don't understand the reason for this 2nd nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2022 Commonwealth Games broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the entries are either unsourced, primary or announcements. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and United Kingdom. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no relevance in an encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTTVDIRECTORY, doesn't meet WP:NLIST standard. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. desmay (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dhamrai Upazila. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamrai Government College[edit]

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

The absence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, means this does not meet the notability guideline WP:NSCHOOL. Of the cited sources: four are not independent (the college's web page, that of the university with which it is affiliated, that of the local government where it is located, and a press release about their annual sports day) - all the information is from the college. The remaining three (honoursadmission.com, locator.eduportalbd.com, and sohopathi.com) are self-published websites, with no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. Searches in English and Bengali found no better sources.

I would be fine with merge or redirect to the surrounding community, Dhamrai Upazila, but am bringing it to AfD because the creator has opposed such alternatives at another article they created, Kushura Abbas Ali High School, going so far as to revert redirection performed as the result of AfD consensus. Worldbruce (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 08:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dhamrai Upazila. Per nom. Also fails NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CKUT-FM[edit]

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

Notability? Janhrach (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. Janhrach (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Janhrach, a one word question is not a strong or coherent argument for why this article warrants deletion. Can you elaborate beyond one word? Otherwise, this discussion might be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See many sources ....that said this will be closed as per reason for deletion?Moxy🍁 03:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-established licensed broadcaster with plenty of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I grant that the article has some obvious sourcing problems in its current state, but not all of the sources in it are bad ones to start with, better sourcing does exist to replace the weaker stuff with, and university/college campus radio stations are judged by the same inclusion criteria as commercial radio stations per WP:NMEDIA. That is, it's not less notable than other radio stations in the same city just because it's owned by a university instead of a major commercial entity. So it could stand to be tagged for ((refimprove)), but it's not deletion-worthy. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Glossary of rugby union terms#B. In the absence of any sourcing, redirecting appears to be the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ball back[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years so per WP:V the claims can be removed. It sounds like it could be a term used in Rugby union and Rugby league but also seems like it could also be used in other sports. Even if it is specified within the official rules of the Rugby codes, it seems like there is little reason to have this page. No need to redirect and if the information needs to be retained it should be added to those pages. JMWt (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Rugby league, and Rugby union. JMWt (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this meant to be an April fools Joke? -- w^L^{<speak·check>} 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Err. No.. JMWt (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of rugby union terms#B. It is sufficiently covered at that location. A redirect is useful in this case because "ball back" is a somewhat common rugby term. Frank Anchor 13:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness by that argument is could also be a redirect to Glossary of rugby league terms. If there is enough sources for a standalone page, can you suggest some? JMWt (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with either redirect target. However, the rugby union glossary has a slightly longer entry for ball back. I never made the argument that there is enough coverage for a standalone page. Frank Anchor 14:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 12:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagge & Peer[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. The two members of the partnership have extensive WP pages on en.wiki, not clear that the partnership meets the notability standards JMWt (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Sweden. JMWt (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources for the partnership as such. I think this content is better covered in the individual biographies. /Julle (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sadikhov[edit]

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

Played 82 mins of football four years ago but has since disappeared. I found passing mentions in Football Plus, Sportnet and Macedonian Football but nothing that demonstrates WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A handful of appearances since 2019 and fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A wonderful may be notable in the future individual. The article lacks SIGCOV and fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. Databases are not sources! It is counted with supported secondary sources! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 18:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Should be merged to Fighter (2024 film). Charliehdb (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are 26 references. The article is also large enough. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. It does not matter how many sources there are, what matters is if any of them are reliable. For the many sources in this article, I find several suspicious because they may just be gossip sites and promotional statements. I will leave it to experts on India's entertainment media to determine how many are reliable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources seem acceptable. Coverage seems to show this soundtrack may be considered notable so that deletion is not necessary in my view. So Keep. Redirect and merge to the music section would imply, as usual, a loss of material and might unbalance the target page. This is an improvable 113 kB article, while the main article is a B-class 254 kB page, if size matters.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Charliehdb, at what point did this did this article fail WP:NALBUM? One does not need to look any further for sources 'cause it is adequately sourced out and up to C-class standard if not B-class. At this I don't know why this page is AfD'd. ihateneo (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please don't waste everyone's time in debating about articles that meet WP:NALBUM, clearly. I can help you in your pursuits of article deletions that qualify deletion. Thanks! Arjann (talk) Arjann (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Marinho[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP stub on a footballer that played one game at professional level before falling into the lower levels. The best that I found were Record, a squad list mention, Radio Geice, a passing mention, and Desportivo Vale do Homem, a squad listing in a local source. I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV or even a passing of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another Alexanderalgrim creation. There could be coverage about the CDP part of his career, but there's a chance it would be local or not significant.
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV beyond the fact that his career is not notable. Anwegmann (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Caniço[edit]

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

To this day, Caniço has never played in a professional league game and I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV to justify an article. As a 15 year old, Calcio Mercato posted a rather far-fetched transfer rumour (reposted in this blog), stating that Inter and Milan were looking at him and that Parma and Man City had already offered for him. As with a lot of these rumours, nothing materialised. Not long after, he failed to even play a league game for lowly Estoril Praia and found his level at Sintrense and Coruchense, the latter club not even having its own Wikipedia article! Records disappear entirely after 2018. Other than the dodgy rumour, the best that I can find is Mais Futebol and Correio do Ribatejo, neither of which are close to passing WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another Alexanderalgrim creation. There could be coverage about the CDP part of his career, but there's a chance it would be local or not significant. Geschichte (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, and a poorly crafted article to begin with. Anwegmann (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Campos (footballer, born 1995)[edit]

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

Played only one professional game in the second tier of Portugal before playing in the third tier and below. I found CNN, which is just a brief article about him signing a professional contract. For his amateur career, I can only find trivial squad list mentions like Record, Mais Futebol and Santo Tirso Digital. Looks to fall short on WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another Alexanderalgrim creation. There could be coverage about the CDP part of his career, but there's a chance it would be local or not significant. Geschichte (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Gajdoš[edit]

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

With only primary sources listed, the article of this young football player certainly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I searched for him on news websites, even in Slovak, but those are limited to brief mentions; no activities on his own. However, the closest ones to SIGCOV are from Sport @ Aktuality.sk : 1 2. We might consider redirect to AS Trenčín as ATD. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 11:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I'm tempted to vote keep, but I think draftifying is the most appropriate move. WP:TOOSOON. Anwegmann (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Tentative as well. I was on the fence, but Geschichte's sources pushed me across the line. Good work. Still short of proper WP:SIGCOV, but I see this as enough for an emerging player. Anwegmann (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - I found this, which has a number of quotes but is quite long, and don't doubt that a Slovak speaker would find more. The player is not that inexperienced, but has been a regular for a couple of years now, and close to the national team. This is what the coverage would stem from. The article is incomplete because his outing at competitions such as the 2023 FIFA U-20 World Cup is not covered, which it for instance is here (maybe not sigcov of him as a person, but of an important aspect of his career thus far). We should never ever redirect to clubs, because clubs are often subject to change. Geschichte (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is widely covered by the national media in Slovakia. I have now added the references to the article. Thanks to @Geschichte for findings some good sources. Newklear007 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Player who is active and leading in Slovak football. Regularly covered. Otapka (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuad Abdella[edit]

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

WP:BLP footballer in Ethiopia with no international caps and only 9 league games, for a bottom team in the league, I don't see it as having any chance to pass WP:GNG (and little future chance to do so as to warrant drafticitation). Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ethiopia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm confused as to why the article was even created as there doesn't seem to be any claim to notability. I can't find any coverage in English or Amharic about him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough international experience to supersede lack of WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jellywings19. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yannik Taniwel[edit]

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

Football manager who fails WP:GNG. Amateur team manager so more like a hobby. Sources are either primary or trivial. Geschichte (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jellywings19. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Sohilait[edit]

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

Football manager who fails WP:GNG. Amateur team manager so more like a hobby. Sources are either primary or trivial. Geschichte (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Kajiyama[edit]

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

Working, successful musician, but doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator on how Kajiyama is a working musician who has hopefully made a living as a sideman, but he simply does not have the in-depth coverage in his own right that is needed for an article here. The albums by his own bands received little notice, while his appearances on other people's albums were typically just guest spots on a few songs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find mention of him on any Japanese sources, or on any sources identified as RS in Project Albums [11]. I don't think we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable heavy metal Jp guitarist. Co-leader of Goldbrick [ja] and has at least 2 albums under his name (Into the Deep with Shimonoya (a Victor record) and Fire without Flame (with Turner; an AOR record). Keep. Added 2 sources (one is not great and is a blog; but I added it because it's in English). For more sources, please see this listing on his official site. Worst case scenario in my view: keep and rename (move) Goldbrick (band) (with a wl to the Jp page I mentioned) and reduce to a paragraph about him/solo career.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC) (NB.....This is not an album but a musician.....:D)[reply]
Delete Would have loved seeing this article remain but per BEFORE doesn't seem to get any information about his except this one, which is far from being an RS. Major case of SIGCOV! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would have loved seeing this article remain but per BEFORE doesn't seem to get any information about his except this one, which is far from being an RS. Major case of SIGCOV! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François-Serge Lhabitant[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Being manager of a secretive family office does not seem enough. The article has no external references and was created by an WP:SPA User:Lhabitant that looks to belong to the subject himself. Searching for external sources I only found [12] and [13] which don't seem to meet the requirements for WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reformatted the nomination, but I'm currently neutral on it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, entirely promotional autobiography. Sandstein 11:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't thought about this, but it does seem that WP:G11 applies because there are no references at all, so it reads like an ad. But I don't think that even rewriting the article to a neutral point of view would establish notability, so we might as well just want to delete through this channel, which is also applicable. Contributor892z (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought he might be notable as a researcher or an author. Google scholar shows multiple pieces of work cited dozens or hundreds of times, and I found two book reviews at 1 and 2 but on their own these probably aren’t enough. There may be more. Mccapra (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mid-level academic, author and entrepreneur. Record of scholarship's impact is not strong enough to establish notability under C1:WP:NPROF. I could find no reviews of his books (of course if there are multiple book reviews out there I didn't find, that might quality under WP:AUTHOR.) But after reading his online CV, I see no evidence at all of that, or of his meeting the other criteria. Qflib (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No doubt this person exists and is an academic, but fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Book reviews do not create notability on their own. Most scholarly books published by respectable presses get reviewed. That means very little toward their notability in the field, much less that of their author. Anwegmann (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Anarchyte (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deal of the day services[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Mostly unreferenced, and very broad criteria for inclusion - there are zillions sites on the net that have 'deals of the day'. We might as well list every second e-commerce website here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. ---- D'n'B-t -- 10:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article seems frozen in time from 2014, when the concept has changed from its origins and been blended into native advertising. Otherwise this exists solely as a WP:PROMO. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NLIST. Even if the topic was widely discussed, I am counting a total of eight "active" pages that would come from the list. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Deal-of-the-day. Small enough to fit without clogging up the main article. DigitalIceAge (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival of the First Africans in English America[edit]

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

Not yet notable: WP:NFILM. No coverage found online in reliable sources, apart from this passing mention in The Virginian-Pilot. None of the awards listed are notable, though a few of them have names quite similar to notable awards. Editors searching for sources please note that the website uses both this title and Arrival of the First Documented Africans in English America (emphasis mine); IMDB uses the latter title. Wikishovel (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Virginia. Wikishovel (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom who have it best in analysing some articles like this. Looking at this for the umpteenth times, I was thinking where all these sources came from (though not GNG), but WP:BEFORE gave nothing except writings dating in 2019 whereas the film here is dated 2023. Will toil ground before WP:NFILM! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnee Summer Theatre[edit]

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

No independent sources of note, other than this an Indiana state website for a theatre in a small town. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to FLSmidth. The article is getting redirect to a different target page because the page suggested is itself a redirect. I recommend you installing the script that shows redirects in a different color font. You should also actually look at the target pages you are recommending to ensure they are suitable targets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cembrit[edit]

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

The original parent company FLSmidth & Co. is notable, but this spun-off subdiary, owned by a few parent companies since, does not appear to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG, with no SIGCOV in reliable sources that I can find. Redirect might be an WP:ATD, but it seemed best to bring it to AFD as the article was created in 2009. It's now a subsidiary of Swisspearl, which might be notable enough for a separate article, but that hasn't been written yet. Wikishovel (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Denmark. Skynxnex (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FLSmidth & Co.. If someone creates an article about Swisspearl later on, it can be moved there. But note that dewiki has an additional citation to a book, [14], which may help establish notability. NicolausPrime (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthenian raid on Poland (1135)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found from WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Article is sourced mainly from a medieval chronicle. Other sources either fail WP:RS or are brief mentions. Nothing with SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 01:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Poland, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ugh. The topic may be notable, but the execution is terrible from the sourcing perspective (medieval sources plus some passing mentions in modern newspaper and minor websites). That said, the article is likely essentially correct - as in, it is not a hoax, RS do confirm there was a Ruthenian raid on Poland that year that burned the town of Wiślica. Here's a good reference [15]. Here's another: [16]. It is rather unforunate that the creator was blocked rather than given a probatory sentence and tasked with verifying their low quality sources with better ones. Overall, while the current sourcing, well, sucks, the topic is likely notable. Sigh - we have dozens of articles from that editor to review, with similar quality of sourcing (ex. [[Polish raid on Kievan Rus' (1136)]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: @TimothyBlue - how's your Polish / Russian? Are you seriously expecting to find any significant sourcing about this kind of historical event in English? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, complete OR based on the lecture of medieval chronicles. While the raid on Wiślica most likey was a historical event, the circumstances are unclear and only described by Kadłubek. I doubt if the topic is WP:NOTABLE, it seems that mention in related articles (Piotr Włostowic, Bolesław III Wrymouth etc.) should be enough. If not removed the article should be rewritten and moved to Wincenty Kadłubek tale about raid on Wiślica; because it's a tale, not historical record. Marcelus (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus Did you look at https://ingremium.pl/index.php/IG/article/view/292 ? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my opinion is based on this article. Marcelus (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus Well, IMHO that article demonstrates the topic is notable. Destruction (sack) of Wiślica is not challenged by historians AFAIK. We might consider whether the article should not be rewritten into one about that event (battle), but to delete it I think is going to far. It is not a WP:HOAX and if there is WP:OR IMHO it does not raise to the point we need to WP:TNT this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of Wiślica probably happened, but it doesn't mean the event is notable enough to deserve a separate article, unless it will be about narratives about the event. Marcelus (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Evangelical Methodist Church of America. Consensus seems to indicate a redirect as preferable to deletion, since it's possible more sources might be found to meet GNG or SNGs. BusterD (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breckbill Bible College[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Currently has no secondary sources whatsoever. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are books that discuss Breckbill Bible College, such as the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, Volume 5, and the Encyclopedia of American Religions. The college is well known in the conservative Wesleyan world and rather than delete the article, I would recommend that it be expanded. 97.70.170.255 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at the first book mention. It is literally a single sentence.... AusLondonder (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Note specifically that ORGCRIT is one, but not the only, path to notability for a degree-granting college. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: What part of WP:NSCHOOL is met here? AusLondonder (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference is that the stricter ORGCRIT standards do not apply to schools; GNG will suffice. What did your BEFORE turn up? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you've read NSCHOOL because it states "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Jclemens seems to have summarised that quotation (which contains the word "or") very well. What makes you question whether that editor has read NSCHOOL? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reconsidering this. The school does not appear to have a working web presence, and I have been unable to find it in any of the various Bible college accreditation organizations. I'm thinking it may fail V. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:ORGSIG:

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists

YordleSquire (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (alternate to deletion) to the parent article Evangelical Methodist Church of America --or-- a Wesleyan world article, where encyclopedia notability is not an issue. Primary sources do not advance notability. I could not find reliable, independent, significate, secondary coverage to advance notability. See: WP:ORGSIG, WP:INHERITORG, and WP:ORGCRIT. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NSCHOOL applies here. Also, the bible college has a profile at the education department.[17] Knox490 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Knox490: NSCHOOL states that "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." AusLondonder (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already copied that. Other people have no problem reading and understanding the word "or", which means that this doesn't need to meet WP:ORGCRIT if it passes the general notability guideline. Why do you seem to? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being it doesn't pass either and a link to a listing on educationdepartment.org certainly doesn't prove otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be true, but it's no good banging on about WP:ORGCRIT as if that is the only available path to notability, and repeatedly pasting things to this discussion that agree with the person you are replying to. I can't be bothered to look for sources for an American school at the moment, but just tell us why you consider this to fail the general notability guideline, i.e. tell us the results of your WP:BEFORE. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knox490 argument. Lokotim (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. 2 hits in google news, and 1 line mentions in google books. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources would be helpful in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the two existing book references count for anything. I can see part/most(?) of one, and it doesn't look substantial enough, so GNG isn't satisfied as far as I can tell. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found what seems to be a book(?) on the life of the college's founder. That would likely have coverage of the institution. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the Google Books link (in English), which shows Manahath Press as the publisher and Max McCall as the author. Is there any evidence that the author and/or publisher are reliable? Left guide (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is mentioned in reliable tertiary sources as noted above. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evangelical Methodist Church of America where it is already mentioned. A relisting comment requested an analysis of sources. Here is my analysis:

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions ^[1]^: 287			The entry is about the Evangelical Methodist Church of America, and all it says of this facility is "Educational Facilities: Breckbill Bible College, Max Meadows, Virginia." That is it.	– Encyclopaedias are technically tertiary, but that would be good enough if coverage were significant
Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States. ^[2]^: 832			Caveat: I had to use google books preview for this as I don't have access to the volume. However, Google books only shows one hit for Breckbill, on page 832. All the entry seems to say is as above, the EMCA operates Breckbill Bible College in Max Meadows, Virginia.	– Encyclopaedias are technically tertiary, but that would be good enough if coverage were significant
breckbillbiblecollege.org ^[3]	This is their own website	They would be reliable for telling us about themselves	All about the Bible College	Clearly they are a primary source for themselves
isainet.com ^[4]	Statement from the Academic president, email Manahath@..., and copyright the Bible College. Remember that email address.	– No reason to doubt that someone from the college is reliable about the college, although the URL just places this in someone's user space.	– Many editors would say three paragraphs are significant. I don't see it is really enough to be writing an encyclopaedic page from though.	It is a statement from the Academic president of the college. That is a primary source.
edutrek.com ^[5]	Almost certainly not independent. It is a directory listing, and I expect that has been placed. However, I don't know that is the case so I'll leave that as unclear.	It's just an address but I do not doubt reliability.	Two sentences and an address. This is a directory listing	This question is moot. I would say it is primary but the source fails on significance anyway.
The Life and Ministry of William Wallace Breckbill	This book was found in the deletion discussion. Per Left guide the publisher is Manahath Press. Now, recall the email address above. This is a small publishing arm of the college.	I expect the college is reliable about themselves	I have not read the book. It is likely to be yes.	Unclear without reading the book, but as it is not independent, it is already ruled out.

So on this basis, I think we are clearly at no notability for a page, but the way it is handled in the two encylopaedia references is the way this encylopaedia should handle it too. Breckbill bilble college is the educational arm of the EMCA and should be (and is) mentioned on that page. This page should redirect there. I hope other !voters can indicate whether they are content with this proposed WP:ATD.

References

^ Melton, J. Gordon (2003). Encyclopedia of American Religions. Gale. p. 396. ISBN 978-0-7876-6384-1.
^ Kurian, George Thomas; Lamport, Mark A. (10 November 2016). Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 832. ISBN 978-1-4422-4432-0.
^ "Breckbill Bible College - Home". breckbillbiblecollege.org. Archived from the original on 16 January 2014. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
^ "Breckbill Bible College". isainet.com. Archived from the original on 8 October 2013. Retrieved 12 February 2014.
^ "Breckbill Bible College". edutrek.com. Archived from the original on 12 February 2014. Retrieved 12 February 2014.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding not having access to Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, I found a copy of the book from Internet Archive here, which confirms this is a passing mention. Cunard (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to EMCA for reasons cited above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Because there are no original or secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GQO (talk • contribs) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Because there are no secondary sources(GQO (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to Evangelical Methodist Church of America (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I agree with Sirfurboy's analysis of the sources as not providing significant coverage. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genod Droog[edit]

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

Article has no references. I am unable to find anything substantial. They do not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Keerukos (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Keerukos (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The have a few awards but they are non-notable awards. Keerukos (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Comment this source [18] verifies a handful of industry awards and having headlined at a significant festival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DandelionAndBurdock (talk • contribs) 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete - The BBC source offered by the commenter above is a basic directory entry that BBC freely offers on its website. Via Google Translate it is a promotional statement with language like "Each gig was unique and the unpredictable nature added excitement" or "like watching history being made." Otherwise, this is tough because the band did have some accomplishments but they didn't really generate much coverage, and even their awards were only briefly listed among everyone else who was at the same ceremony: [19], [20]. That's all I can find in any language. It looks like they came close, but no (Wikipedia) cigar. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and WP:MUSICBIO. I was unable to find any additional news. Maxcreator (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Procedural Keep. Stating there are two sources, without evaluating the quality of these sources, isn't providing a rationale for deletion, it's just stating what is present in the article. Please remember to do a thorough WP:BEFORE before compiling a compelling, policy-based rationale for why deletion is called for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Wilks[edit]

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

Only two sources in the article no others that I could find. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - no deletion rationale given. This is a player with (at least) 17 professional appearances in England in the 1920s. I am happy to assume there are more offline sources per WP:COMMONSENSE. Giant Snowman 11:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but can you find those sources? This essay seems relevent. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are already two from Green'un listed in the article itself. Giant Snowman 15:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further, also there is the Joyce source - so THREE sources, not two as you claim in your late nomination rationale. Have you done BEFORE to check the Green'un sources? How do you know they are not significant coverage? Giant Snowman 15:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Joyce source seems pretty produdual just a book of records. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Multiple sources showing this player played numerous games of professional football. Strange proposal. Kivo (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A source review would have been very helpful in this discussion but none was provided by participants. But there is a consensus to Keep and no additional support for Deletion. I don't think a third relist would result in a clearer consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayyur Girotra[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG, there are some announcements kind of sources, routine coverage and non-independent interview, but I fail to see any real independent SIGCOV about the person. Tehonk (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When I searched for this person on many places (like: Google, Wing, Yandex, and DuckDuckGo), I found many news articles. Based on that, the subject is clearly passing WP:THREE. The article can be tagged to improve current sourcing though. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show that WP:THREE, simply saying there are WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument. Tehonk (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha'n why not. Here are your WP:THREE. 1, 2, 3. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 3 are just interviews so they are not independent. 2 could be OK. So I don't think this is passing THREE. I'll check the below sources later. Tehonk (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know 1 & 3 i gave are interviews but not everything in those interviews is solely from the subject. There's some independent text in there too, like the first paragraph. These sources are reliable and credible. Anyway, i found some additional sources that are secondary independent reliable that shows the subject's significance as a designer like [21], [22], [23] Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject appears to be a notable designer. He is the only person from South Asia selected to kick off New York's prestigious LGBTQ+ Pride 2024, and he is among the only 14 designers to exhibit at the French European Fashion Week, which gained a lot of media attention. [24][25], [26], [27], [28] Various leading media houses extensively covered him. [29]. Google News Search yielded lots of hits from reliable secondary sources passing WP:BASIC. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, seeking some feedback on the sources brought to this discussion (and any others that can be mentioned). It's not sufficient to say that you did a search and found sources, you must share what they are.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided above, passes WP:BASIC.Sk1728 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per above. Actual analysis of sources would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Sufficient sources provided above by Youknowwhoistheman and Wasilatlovekesy . Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article. If an editor wants to work on the article in Draft space and submit it for review to AFC, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. It's unfortunate that no improvements were made to the article over the course of the past week but if it is draftified, it will need substantial work to be accepted back into main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership of the Walt Disney Company[edit]

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

I find it rather concerning that this article (which is arguably just an extensive list) was made as an undiscussed WP:CONTENTFORK and duplication of the Walt Disney Company#Leadership section, as well as other sections of people at the specific company units (ie Marvel Studios#Key people). I will note that, while the major shareholders are notable given the highly-profiled proxy fight, they do not suit major positioning that warrants a separate article for corporate leadership in a list and would be more beneficial in a section on the main article and in its infobox. Much of this list is comprised of unsourced or poorly formatted contents which seem like a cut-and-paste of the official Disney websites' hierarchical structure listings as opposed to providing any actual input or information as to who all of these people are and why they are all relevant to the leadership of a multinational conglomerate with millions of assets. Surely not all of them have an impact on the leadership. WP:PEOPLELIST states: "Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
There are some common exceptions to the typical notability requirement:

If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) establish their notability on either WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness."

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the vast majority of these persons included in this list are remotely notable, let alone relevant, to the company's overall and general leadership. They're not unit heads, on the company board, shareholders, or top-ranking/important execs. And for those that are notable, they are covered with more relevance at each individual unit's article, and ought not to all be compiled in this list, which is essentially looking for a purpose when everything relevant is already covered elsewhere. And if the notable persons are not mentioned, such content ought to be split to the relevant articles, not stockpiled here. If this were an article discussing Disney's history with leadership and succession issues, that would be a different story, though such splitting ought to be discussed at the main talk first to avoid such lists like this and AfDs from happening. There may be some merit in crafting an article on the highly-publicized proxy fight in which leadership and succession has been addressed, though this list is not the answer to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Disney, and Companies. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per WP:NOTDIRECTORY MaskedSinger (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Trailblazer101,

This being a brand new article and myself being a relatively new editor, I understand my mistakes in my writing of this article and I'd like to thank you for pointing them out. You have brought to my attention a series of issues that I believe CAN be solved without a necessity for deletion or merging.

This article was intended to provide a visualization for the organization of one of the most written-about and complex organizational structures. It was not intended to provide a list of people working for the Walt Disney Company, as you brought up, but rather to detail how the company's business units were organized and provide a central location for Wikipedia articles regarding the Walt Disney Company's subdivisions and business units (as seen in how the article has been implemented into Portal:Disney, Category:The Walt Disney Company, Category: Disney Executives and WikiProject: Disney). After bringing up these concerns, I understand that it would be better to show this by focusing more on the business units and their descriptions rather than simply an organized list of the units and the people who run them.

Going forward, I believe some changes are in order.

1) We will clean up the article by deleting insignificant sections that are not worthy of being in an encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:Notability.

2) We will reorganize the article to shift its focus from being a list of people to being more fixated on the structure of the company. That way, it will be more clear that this is not intended to be a list of people, but rather a list of positions and units of the Walt Disney Company.

3) We will add more descriptive information so that this article fulfills its purpose of explaining the organization of a notable corporate structure.

4) We will add more references and more links to showcase how well-documented and notable this subject is from multiple trusted media outlets.

I believe this topic, after much revision, will merit its own article, rather than to be compiled into a main article because of how heavily the structure of the Walt Disney Company (and changes of such) is reported in the media.

Essentially, this is a new article and needs a lot of work. You are correct that this article, as a list of people, does not necessitate its own article. However, were we to revise the article and shift its focus to discuss the in-depth structure of the Walt Disney Company so that it serves its intended role, this article would be attractive to readers interested in corporate structure, business, and The Walt Disney Company. As a new editor, I know mistakes are bound to be made, so I appreciate you all for catching them. Please help me out with any suggestions on how we can revise this article to serve a purpose that would be notable and attractive to readers. However, I do not believe deleting this article is the right solution.

To answer your concerns directly in case there was any confusion:

"would be more beneficial in a section on the main article and in its infobox"

The structuring of The Walt Disney Company is quite complex at this depth and wouldn't fit well into the main article.

"Much of this list is comprised of unsourced or poorly formatted contents which seem like a cut-and-paste of the official Disney websites' hierarchical structure listings as opposed to providing any actual input or information as to who all of these people are and why they are all relevant to the leadership of a multinational conglomerate with millions of assets"

Regarding the sourcing, you're right. Much of the sourcing came from the same websites, especially when positions were a part of the same unit. What we need to do is copy the references to every instance that they apply to, rather than noting them once. Regarding the formatting and cut-and-paste claim: could you clarify what you mean about the formatting? Being much more experienced than me at Wikipedia editing, you likely know more about how to better format such an article. I'd be open to any suggestions you have. This article was not a copy-and-paste from the company's website outside of the top executives in each business segment. Disney business websites do not detail the structuring of their company below the business segments. A lot of in-depth research was done to find information about organization levels below the top executives.

Regarding your claim about WP:PEOPLELIST notability requirements

You're correct again here. I hadn't read those entirely yet, and you provided good information for me. I've now read Wikipedia's notability requirements, which influenced my idea to shift the focus of this article to the organization of the company rather than a list of people, also providing a description explaining the structure and role of certain positions. Such a change would give this article so much more value, and I hadn't thought of that before your message. So thank you for the link to WP:PEOPLELIST.

One final note, I've been working on linking this article with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Disney and the relevant categories surrounding this article. The purpose of this is to link the article with the relevant editing community so that I can get help from them as to how best to improve this article. I'd like the chance to work with them as well as more experienced editors, such as yourself, to fix these concerns and turn this article into one of notability and attractiveness.

Thank you for your concerns, and I look forward to hearing any suggestions you, or others, have. Investor Day (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investor Day, it never hurts to work on improving the article under discussion during this week-long period to address the concerns of the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Investor Day: Precisely, you are free to improving this article based on the concerns I raised while this discussion takes place. I would highly suggest working on this in the WP:Draftspace or your own WP:Userspace, such as a WP:Sandbox, if you wish to perform further work in case of deletion so you can retain a copy of your current work. I have tagged the article's talk page with the relevant WikiProjects and notified each of them regarding this nomination. I would love to see a strategic analysis on the company's history of structural and leadership changes discussed in a more thorough and critical article as opposed to a staunch list, and I'm glad to hear your willingness to improve this into something more! And hey, if this does go to the draftspace or is deleted, that is okay, too, as you can always work on it as a draft or in your userspace and then submit it through our WP:Articles for creation team which would be happy to assist you in article creation endeavors. Our WP:Teahouse team is also here to assist you. I'm glad to hear you have a vested interest in the Walt Disney Company and its leadership structure, and commend your for your thorough research. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll get to work on that. Honestly, I would be more interested in writing that kind of article anyway.

And thanks for the tips, I've been exploring a lot of the WP help pages and different WikiProjects because of your comments! Investor Day (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Much of this information does not interest most readers. This is not Investopedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per NOTDIRECTORY. Any leadership that is relevant can be placed in the infoboxes of the respective Wikipedia pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this page under my User space in order to keep it as a reference for myself and give myself a space to rework it (as discussed above) and re-publish it into the mainspace after review from the relevant WP communities. I'm not sure that I'm allowed to remove the AFD nomination, so please let me know how to proceed or take action yourself. Hopefully this is a valid solution. Thank you all for the suggestions and consideration. Investor Day (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Investor Day, do not move an article being discussed at an open AFD discussion until it is closed. If you want the article userfied or draftified, state that as your desired outcome. But you can not usurp this discussion by moving the article under discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. BusterD (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa (restaurant)[edit]

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

I withdraw this nomination for deletion. WizardGamer775 (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) ~~Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations).~~ [reply]

I don't think this restaurant is notable as it doesn't have "substantial coverage"- all there is are articles about how it is on the Michelin star list and how Wayne Gretzky ate there. The coverage is merely trivial. I don't think this restaurant is notable enough to be on Wikipedia. WizardGamer775 (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The restaurant business is notoriously fickle, and restaurants in general have a habit of not lasting for a long time. This place is 5 years and a few months old. New restaurants that have quality, as this one apparently does, often receive a lot of press but it's usually all local coverage. Elisa received a Michelin star, so Bravo for that, but I've got a basic problem with providing a young-lived restaurant that has one location with an article. If they make it to 10 years, try recreating the article. PK T(alk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've stated some personal preferences without actually saying anything about the amount of coverage this particular restaurant has received to date. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's incorrect. I wrote, "New restaurants that have quality, as this one apparently does, often receive a lot of press but it's usually all local coverage." PK T(alk) 23:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a general statement about restaurant coverage, not an assessment of the subject's secondary coverage. All you've said specifically about Elisa is that the restaurant is "apparently" of quality. I don't expect to change your vote, so I'll move on to other things. I'm so tired of discussing restaurant notability, someone else can drive for a while... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I agree that 5 years is not enough for a restaurant. 10 years might be. WizardGamer775 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: page creator). I disagree with the nominator's assessment that "all there is are articles about how it is on the Michelin star list and how Wayne Gretzky ate there". That's far from accurate, and actually misleading. I've been able to quickly and easily expand this entry to add detail about the menu, interior, leadership and operations, and reception, using plenty of journalistic sources: The Globe and Mail, Vancouver Magazine, Vancouver Sun, Wine Spectator, The Georgia Straight, Daily Hive, and Retail Insider. The article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is only trivial coverage. The restaurant is only mentioned in lists or name reveals. That doesn't make it notable at all. To your credit, you found a lot of sources but unfortunately it still doesn't make it notable.

Think of it this way. Is a shop notable if it's mentioned in 40 versions of the Yellow Pages? Is it notable if it's advertised in 10 newspapers? Not necessarily.

Thus, your arguments (I mean this politely) isn't valid. Unless you find something significant unfortunately the article may have to be deleted. WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging that I've found a lot of sources. Sorry, but I don't consider these publications equivalent to the Yellow Pages. I strongly disagree with your assessment and I am going to move on. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indeed there are more restaurants to have this type of coverage, which are not in the wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that this one doesn't fit in. The sources are sufficient and sufficiently varied (both in type of source, and in type of information they are covering). L.tak (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the sources, it's just lists that mention Elisa or celebrating it's opening or a michelin star. I don't think the sources make it notable in all honesty. WizardGamer775 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORGDEPTH. Coverage is not sustained or varied. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strong news coverage exists as evident by 42 sources. IMO, it should not have been nominated. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 42 sources but they are all trivial mentions. Just because it is mentioned doesn't make it notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MILL could not be clearer: In every city and town are single-location businesses (e.g. ... restaurant ...) and in some places, most businesses fit this description. Yet they may be mentioned in reliable sources. ... Some articles not to create based on common sources only are: A restaurant that has been given reviews in the local papers. Yes, there are lots of references but they are all mundane, and this is exactly what WP:MILL talks about: there is nothing here to elevate this restaurant above the ordinary. (Also, contrary to some assertions above, it does not have a Michelin star.) The proliferation of articles about non-notable restaurants should stop. Dorsetonian (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can only repeat the first relisting comment: There are a lot of general comments about coverage but a source analysis table would benefit this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning to correct the two delete voters who said the restaurant has received a Michelin star. But at this point, it is worth correcting because the errors suggest sometimes votes at AfD are cast without careful consideration and thorough review of sourcing. MILL is an essay and does not apply, and the coverage is not "all mundane" -- even if you remove the local awards for Best New Restaurant, ranking in Best Steakhouses category, Sommelier of the Year, etc, you still have recognition by Wine Spectator and recommendation in the Michelin Guide. These things are not achieved by the vast majority of restaurants. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage? Mention by Michelin? Why are we even here? There's a lot of comments here the coverage being entirely trivial - but how is the Globe article trivial. The G&M is Canada's biggest national paper; this is hardly local coverage. Nfitz (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nfitz. At the time I nominated the article for deletion, none of these sources were apparent. Thanks for bringing up this article. Since I nominated the page for deletion, sources have appeared on the page. Anyways I will let consensus decide the fate of the article. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BEFORE ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion @Another Believer is that you could perhaps start your articles in a draft space prior to moving them to the article space. Otherwise, people might question the notability of your article's subject.

Now, hear me out. I made the same mistake with one of my articles and it got sent back to the draft space. Note that I am making this suggestion to help you. Perhaps this will mean less AfDs on your articles. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to change your vote to keep? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this has already had a wide mixture of votes I think it is best we let the community decide. WizardGamer775 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This article has been heavily edited since its nomination. Please review changes to see whether or not it impacts your opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz We can withdraw it. WizardGamer775 (talk) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure withdrawing is possible, since at least one other editor has voted delete, but I'll happily change my vote to speedy keep per your comment. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning your changing stance, WizardGamer775, it would help if you made a withdrawal statement under your deletion nomination as some editors don't scroll all of the way down the page. But there are three editors arguing for deletion so this can't be closed as a Speedy Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and, maybe more importantly, no additional support for Deletion even after two relistings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being Mortal (film)[edit]

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

As it stands this film holds no current plans to resume production in the near future, thus no longer satisfying WP:NFF. The film's production history is not extensive enough to me to merit exemption ala Akira (planned film). I attempted restoration back to draftspace to hold it, this was refused so now I must pursue deletion. NFF not satisfied, no guarantee for it to even be revisited, production history not extensive. This does not pass muster for mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 02:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: I have taken your talk page deletion of my comment as me not being welcome there. Pinging you to inform of deletion discussion. Rusted AutoParts 02:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Events, Law, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NFF as principal photography has begun. This is precisely a case where the production itself is notable, as covered by the cited sources: [30][31][32][33][34]. It is Akira (planned film) that lacks "extensive production history"—in fact it has zero production history—in violation of NFF (but survived two AfDs anyway). If anything, the existence of that article supports keeping this article, not deleting it. Nardog (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, the literal first sentence on the article is "Being Mortal is a suspended (really should be rephrased to cancelled) American comedy-drama film written, directed, produced by, and starring Aziz Ansari in what was set to be his feature directorial debut". Whether it had begun or not is moot, it was pretty thoroughly cancelled in the state it had been in, and is not considered a production intended to even happen anymore. NFF is not satisfied in this sense, since the production had issues that ultimately interfered with it's intention to be a released film.

I had been the one to spearhead the two deletion discussions for Akira. Both times it was deemed notable on it's development/production history. Years and even decades worth of news. Being Mortal does not match that, hence the comparison. All it had really was film announced and some castings. The rest is about the suspending incident, which can just as effectively be covered at Ansari, Murray or both individual Wiki pages. By itself, it absolutely does not pass muster. Rusted AutoParts 02:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles about upcoming films not because we think they will be notable once they're released—which would be WP:CRYSTAL—but because they're already notable. NFF makes no distinction between forthcoming and suspended films. Your speculation on the "intention to be a released film" is OR, CRYSTAL, and irrelevant. Nardog (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely not OR, it's sourced in the article itself. "The filmmakers sought to find a financier and distributor to replace Searchlight to no avail. Ansari reportedly intends (Also love how this is sourced in there, he himself didn't even say this) to revisit Being Mortal", that's not speculation, that's an assertion the production is nonexistent. It was offloaded by it's distributor and ceased production almost two years ago. We aren't using a crystal ball to predict anything and I'm not asserting any kind of original research. And what sets this production apart from other upcoming films is that this is not an upcoming film anymore, and those other films have not been cancelled or suspended or delayed in production. What IS original research however is this edit summary where you assert what the category is for even though your special definition for it is not present in the category's description. Rusted AutoParts 03:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Puck source used to highlight Ansari "reportedly intends" to revisit it states the production will not be finished. Rusted AutoParts 03:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A precedent was also established with the film Gore, a film just about done with it's post-production cancelled. It's production history outside of the reason it was cancelled parallels the production history of Being Mortal. Too sparse details about the film, not the reason it was shelved, but the film itself were available, so it didn't meet notability on it's own. Rusted AutoParts 03:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very exhausting to see this pick and choose mentality of when guidelines/policies/standards are exercised and when they are not on this website. Gore gets cancelled after nearing conclusion of post-production, it gets redirected as it no longer meet guidelines. This film gets cancelled two weeks in, and yet despite no production history outside of it's castings and when it started filming it's now a notable production. It's a film that for all intents and purposes will never be made. There is nothing on this page that merits salvaging outside of the incident, which as I said can be, and has been, summarized on Ansari's and Murray's articles. Just feels like a double standard. Rusted AutoParts 03:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable production failure.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? The incident involving Murray doesn't make the attempted film itself notable. Rusted AutoParts 03:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage makes it notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage that pertains more to the actions of Bill Murray. Still doesn't make the film or it's subsequent cancellation notable per NFF. "Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". The film's "failure" isn't notable. It's failure was not the result of tumultuous or costly production problems detailed in length. It was the result of a crewmember's conduct, a crewmember who has a Wiki page we can, and already have, noted on their page. Rusted AutoParts 02:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failure was significantly covered in reliable sources ergo notable per the guideline. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The misconduct was significantly covered. Rusted AutoParts 03:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This has started a "principal photography" passing WP:NFF. The suspension coverage [35], [36], [37], [38] and [39] can be case of WP:ONE EVENT. Moving per BEFORE, the movie has been noted for it's role and it's suspension. For now, there mother option than to keep the record—suspension and it's SIGCOV!. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this article meets notability. I would draftify Akira (planned film) as it has never gone beyond development, not even casting a single actor to my knowledge.TheMovieGuy 03:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.E. (TV series)[edit]

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

Russian television series. No significance observed, zero links.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 04:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Taking timestamps into account, there is a fairly clear consensus that at least by now the deletion rationale given by nom is not valid. However, some editors also indicated that delineating the precise scope of this article may require additional discussion through the usual processes on the article’s talk page. (non-admin closure) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chasiv Yar[edit]

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

There isn't even any fighting in Chasiv Yar. WP:TOOSOON. If a battle starts there we can give it its own article, but there is no battle right now.

This is another of the many content forks of this war that keep getting deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive. Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding the scope of a battle, a battle does not have to be in the city itself to constitute being a battle. The Battle of Stalingrad was from 17 July 1942 to 2 February 1943, yet the Germans did not reach the city itself till late August, yet the fighting on the distant approaches to the city is considered part of the singular battle. Same applies to the battle of Bakhmut, sources recognize the battle as having began in its outskirts, before the city was even under siege, as early as July, or even May of 2022. The ISW also notes that Russian sources recognize the offensives around Bakhmut as a concentrated effort on taking Chasiv Yar. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same could apply to the battle of Kyiv, there was not any fighting within the actual city itself, but on the approaches to it, similar to the Battle of Moscow from 1941 to 1942, no fighting in the city itself but on the approaches. So limiting a battle to having to be actually in the city itself or whatever measurement to define closeness to constitute a battle is subjective and not stringently defined. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing the Russian capital, the greatest battle in history and the Ukrainian capital with a random town in Ukraine with a pre-war population of 12,250. The case of Kyiv is an exception in the topic area of this war because it was the Ukrainian capital and it was the initial phases of the war when everyone thought Ukraine was going to fall and thus we actually have sources reporting on a battle for Kyiv. I don't see such sources for Chasiv Yar.

Judging from the sources in this article there is an acknowledgment that Russia is approaching the city (Ruins and corpses among the howitzers: Russia prepares its next great siege in eastern Ukraine, Military: Ukraine partially retakes ground near Avdiivka while Russia pushes toward Chasiv Yar) but not of a "battle of Chasiv Yar" yet. May I by the way remind that the article barely has any information on a supposed battle. The article barely reflects the discussion that is taking place here. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most historians would consider the Battle of Stalingrad to be the greatest battle in history, such as British historian Geoffrey Roberts, and Russian sources, such as Soviet general Viktor Matsulenko, and other Russian scholars who refer to it as the "battle of the century".^[1] Also, the Battle of Stalingrad is considered to have began on the distant approaches to the city, in the Don Bend, on 17 July, yet it was neither Moscow or Kyiv, both capital cities, so clearly fighting within a city is the not the definite mark of a battle. On top of that, the Battle of Bakhmut, despite the apparent main assault towards the city on 1 August, is regarded by numerous analysts at ISW as beginning in July of 2022, when Russia made advances towards the city, or even earlier in May, when fighting in the Bakhmut area actually began, yet the city is not a capital. Restricting the naming of a battle because it is not a capital or "greatest battle of all time" is not really sound logic, and the ISW analysts recognize that Russian offensives towards Chasiv Yar constitute an operation to take Chasiv Yar. Again, is there a stringent list of requirements which includes that a battle for a city must first start with fighting inside the city? Otherwise, numerous examples prove otherwise, including those above. Reaper1945 (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources saying a battle has started in Chasiv Yar? Ultimately that's what matters, rather than discussing other cases. Currently the article only has sources saying russia is advancing towards the town and anticipating a battle in the future. Super Ψ Dro 20:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six sources given in the lede state that the "fighting", "defence" and "battle" of Chasiv Yar has already begun. Reaper1945 (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salfanto (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A !vote without any comment or rationale will hardly be taken into account by the closer. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom that the battle hasn't actually started yet. None of the sources in English refer to this as a battle (though if someone could check the foreign sources that would be appreciated). The article claims that this source says "positional battles" were occuring around Chasiv Yar, but that is actually incorrect: the source says "positional engagements" were occuring around Chasiv Yar. Until the actual battle starts, this is, as nom said, WP:TOOSOON. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd normally be all for deleting the article, however, the actual article on Chasiv Yar is really slanted (to be honest, mostly due to my contributions) because there isn't really any other place for info on Chasiv Yar in the war to live. If we where to migrate all the stuff in the Chasiv Yar Russin invasion section to a background section then I'd think we'd have enough to keep this article afloat. I don't think Ukraine is going to be making a push for Bakhmut anytime soon (I'd love to be proven wrong) and it is far more likely that Russia is just going to intensify it's attacks in the Donbas in the near future. Scu ba (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL. Currently there is no battle in Chasiv Yar, so we can simply not have an article on it. As I said, we can create an article if a battle erupts in the future (maybe draftifying this article could be an option if editors deem a battle to start soon as likely). The information here can be easily integrated at Chasiv Yar#Russian invasion of Ukraine so that no information is lost. Super Ψ Dro 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A battle does not have to take place in the city itself to constitute a battle, again, this would apply to the battle of Kyiv or Battle of Moscow which saw no fighting within the cities themselves. Reaper1945 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the March 26 ISW report mentions fighting within city limits. Scu ba (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geolocated footage published on March 24 indicates that Russian forces marginally advanced northeast of Kanal (an eastern suburb of Chasiv Yar). Nothing about fighting inside the city. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Reaper1945 Durranistan (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify- it isn't clear that the battle has begun yet and we can't be sure that there will be a "Battle of Chasiv Yar" in the future (assuming that there will be is WP:CRYSTALBALL)- however, many sources do mention advances towards Chasiv Yar, so it'd be best to leave it as a draft to be expanded and reworked until sources start speaking of an actual battle there.

Some have mentioned the fact that it's not necessary for there to be fighting in the city limits for there to be a battle of that city (e.g. Moscow, Kyiv), but those offensives were major and are universally deemed a battle in themselves, while the apparent Russian advance to Chasiv Yar appears to be... just that, an apparent Russian advance on the town. Doesn't really constitute a full battle yet - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 20:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with name Chasiv Yar during the Russian invasion of Ukraine.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article like that seems like it would be easily integrable into Chasiv Yar#Russian invasion of Ukraine, given this article's short length. This would also be an unprecedented format of article. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know there is no fighting there? Eehuiio (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no proof for now that Russian forces reached at least eastern outskirts of the city, the front line is now close to the city but not in the city itself. Hyfdghg (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on anyone arguing there is a battle taking place in the city right now, not on the opposite side. Super Ψ Dro 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Chasiv Yar in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. RS does back up that Chasiv Yar is being targetted ([40][41]), however, RS also supports that there is no direct confrontation in Chasiv Yar nor any attacks/airstrikes. Chasiv Yar is an administrative center for the Chasiv Yar urban hromada, so my !vote for keeping and renaming the article supports that information pretaining to the Chasiv Yar urban hromada's four settlements are included in the article. I do agree that a "Battle of Chasiv Yar" article is WP:TOOSOON, however, deletion is not necessary due to RS support that Chasiv Yar is a current objective in the invasion. Note, my !vote should not be prejudice against a future "Battle of Chasiv Yar" article (i.e. a future renaming of this article to the current title) if and/or when combat begins to take place in the city. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter There actually have been artillery and air attacks on Chasiv Yar. On 17 February 2024, Russians dropped an ODAB-1500 thermobaric bomb on defending positions in Chasiv Yar,^[2]^[3] and shelling reported on 2 December 2023^[4] and 9 March 2024.^[5] Sources also mention that Rusaian forces are within a couple miles of the city, extremely close and pushing towards the city. Reaper1945 (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper1945: Even then, that just supports my !vote. Pushing towards the city does not imply a "battle" has taken place or is currently taking place. The bombing references above just support that the article should not be deleted, but rather (most likely temporarily) be renamed to not include "battle" in the title. It can be renamed back to "battle of" once fighting begins to take place army vs army in the city itself. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter Settlements in the Chasiv Yar urban hromada have been attacked and stormed, such as Bohdanivka, and Ivanivske, which is immediately east of Chasiv Yar has been captured by Russian forces on 23 March. I do not see how fighting on the outskirts of a city does not constitute a battle? Analysts at ISW and Kyiv Independent reporters clearly view the Battle of Bakhmut beginning on its outskirts when its settlements were attacked and Russian forces pushed towards the city, despite no fighting within the city yet, how can the same not be said for Chasiv Yar? Reaper1945 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reaper1945 Have ISW or any other analysts assessed that the Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun? If not, then who are we to be the first to make that assessment? Regards, SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus See @Zerbrxsler response down below, think he covers it quite well. Reaper1945 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reaper1945: It concerns me that Zerbrxsler seems to have independently come to the conclusion that the Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun. This would appear to be an extrapolation that isn't directly stated in any of the sources linked in the user's comment. I also don't think the reasoning that fighting in the outskirts of the city definitely makes it eligible to have its own article holds true; there are many Ukrainian cities of equal and larger population for which this principle has not applied. Regards, SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I did, in fact, not come to this conclusion independently. I base it on reliable news reports and expert opinions, for example AFP: "Ukraine Faces Key Battle In Chasiv Yar"^[6]; Courthouse News Service: "Russian forces move on Chasiv Yar, new battleground in intensifying Ukraine war"^[7]; TSN.ua: "The Russians have entered the important heights of Chasiv Yar".^[8] Greetings, Zerbrxsler (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zerbrxsler. I fail to see how those sources demonstrate that the Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun. On the contrary, the below quote from an article you shared (Courthouse News) would imply that any battle has yet to begin and remains a speculative concept:

With Russian soldiers slowly advancing on Chasiv Yar from the east and the south, the heavily fortified city looks set to become the next big battle over eastern Ukraine's Donbas region

Additionally, the title of the Barron's/AFP article, Ukraine Faces Key Battle in Chasiv Yar seems to suggest that a battle is upcoming rather than ongoing, in the sense of "face" as "to have in prospect" (Wiktionary). My best regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus In my eyes this is a semantics discussion. "{...} set to become the next big battle {...}", "set" is a hard word. It is something determined, or even already actively set. This can't be denied, the same with "Ukraine faces key battle {...}", "faces" is an active form of "to face", facing, meaning it's active. This is irrelevant now because the Battle of Chasiv Yar was directly called by Euromaidan Press: "Russian forces conducted a series of powerful mechanized assaults and officially started their next great battle – the Battle for Chasiv Yar."^[9] and Frankfurter Rundschau: "Battle for Chasiv Yar: Ukraine wants to block the “door to Donbass”.".^[10] Greetings, Zerbrxsler (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a battle has begun in the outskirts of chasiv yar Lukt64 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Исаакович, Цветков Анатолий; Александрович, Борщ Александр (2018). "СТАЛИНГРАДСКАЯ БИТВА - СРАЖЕНИЕ ВЕКА (К 75-ЛЕТИЮ РАЗГРОМА НЕМЕЦКО-ФАШИСТСКИХ ВОЙСК ПОД СТАЛИНГРАДОМ)". Научно-аналитический журнал Обозреватель - Observer (1 (336)): 111–119. ISSN 2074-2975.
^ Ситников, Александр (2024-02-19). "О начале битвы за Часов Яр известил эпический «почти ядерный» взрыв". svpressa.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-03-31.
^ Shcherbak, Svetlana (2024-03-30). "Was the ODAB-1500 Aviation Bomb Used by the Enemy for the First Time: What Is Its Main Danger?". en.defence-ua.com. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
^ Presse, AFP-Agence France (2023-12-02). "Russian Shelling Kills One In Ukraine's Chasiv Yar: Kyiv". www.barrons.com. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
^ "Russians shell Chasiv Yar, killing a man". www.pravda.com.ua. 2024-03-09. Retrieved 2024-03-31.
^ https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-faces-key-battle-in-chasiv-yar-a-door-to-donbas-1b3d6918
^ https://www.courthousenews.com/russian-forces-move-on-chasiv-yar-new-battleground-in-intensifying-ukraine-war/
^ https://tsn.ua/en/ato/the-russians-have-entered-the-important-heights-of-chasiv-yar-co-founder-of-deepstate-explains-why-this-is-dangerous-2548711.html
^ http://web.archive.org/web/20240407112153/https://euromaidanpress.com/2024/04/07/frontline-report-ukrainian-troops-in-chasiv-yar-face-extensive-bombing-and-numerous-attacks/
^ http://web.archive.org/web/20240407112420/https://www.fr.de/politik/ukraine-krieg-kampf-tschassiw-jar-russland-tuer-donbass-kramatorsk-slowjansk-92990612.html

Draftify WP:TOOSOON internet searches say that battle hasn’t started yet (Russia did not even reach the city yet) so there is no battle to report (yet).Contributor892z (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. Please work to give policy-based opinions on what should happen with this article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A brief google search of "battle of chasiv yar" gives few results of such a thing existing, with very few mainstream sources. In my humble opinion, it would be better to write about this is a "post- battle of Bakmutt" framework rather than a distinct entity. For instance, as part of the "eastern front" of ukraine, after bakmutts fall, several villages fell after prolonged shelling and skirmishes, including chasiv yar. While I have no doubt many people have died in chasiv yar and much has been blown up, its not noteworthy enough (unlike mauripol, avdidivka, bakmutt). That could change o course, but for now delete.2605:A601:5553:B000:F5AC:CA05:A342:E541 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously keep. By now, it's too late to delete this article. As of today, it was confirmed that Russian forces entered the city and there is already fighting inside city boundaries (check the ISW map). Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In respect to WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON, this article maybe, probably, was made about a week or two too soon in retrospect. But as of the 4th and 5th of April, an increasing amount of news articles and RS are now mentioning clashes on the outskirts of, or even inside Chasiv Yar's administrative borders, and the Ukrainian command are now (publicly) saying the situation is deteriorating and at least becoming "tense". So, I am inclined to vote for keeping it at this point. And considering the Russians currently have the offensive initiative in the war (regardless of casualties) I personally do not expect or predict they will suddenly stop assaulting the city on their own after today, but will keep pushing and urban clashes will escalate, so the battle can be considered to have begun by at least today's date. Now, the EXACT date it began, that is still up for debate, assuming the article is even kept up after the discussions here.

Additionally, for the record, I am of the group of editors that believes the battle for a city can be considered to have begun before ground troops actually physically cross the city's administrative borders. A battle for a specific settlement can begin on the outskirts and on the approach towards it, before enemy troops actually physically enter said settlement, especially if the objectives and aims of the advance can be reasonably gleamed by general observers, even without any official government/military statements regarding specific objectives. I believe there's historical precedent for this as well, no? I believe other editors have provided examples above, if I'm not mistaken. RopeTricks (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ISW,^[1] Spatial Grounds (formerly MilitaryLand.net),^[2] Deepstate,^[3] UA Control Map (Project Owl OSINT)^[4]^[5] all reported fighting on the outskirts. Fighting on the outskirts of the city definitely makes it eligible to have its own article, even if Russians only manage to contest just a bit of the city. There are reports that the mayor takes drastic evacuation efforts to get the civilians out. NPR: "Russia closes in {on Chasiv Yar}".^[6] Russia took the strategic initiative and is on the offensive towards the city. There are strong indicators that this city is a target of the Russian Armed Forces, RFE/RFL: "Russian troops have been targeting Chasiv Yar";^[7] so intent is also proved, besides presence. The Battle of Chasiv Yar has begun, it is out of question. Zerbrxsler (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any dispute that there is conflict and war in Chasiv Yar. The question (imho) is whether or not the conflict and war there is noteworthy enough to constitute a battle, such as bakmutt, avdiivka, mauripol, kiev etc. Keep in mind that there are dozens of ukranian villages and towns along the frontline under constant bombing, artillery drone and skirmish threat. Do each and every one deserve a "battle?" A brief google search for "battle of chasiv yar" gives very few results and almost none from noteworthy sources. Everything thats happening there could be summarized in the main chasiv yar page or the ukranian war eastern theatre page. For instance, you could just write something to the effect "chasiv yar was under continuous bombing and artillery for a year after the fall of bakmutt, and on May 15th 2024 Russia occupied the city." 2605:A601:5553:B000:7426:D438:CEDE:E180 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2605:A601:5553:B000:7426:D438:CEDE:E180 It was just called by Euromaidan Press: "Russian forces conducted a series of powerful mechanized assaults and officially started their next great battle – the Battle for Chasiv Yar."^[8] and Frankfurter Rundschau: "Battle for Chasiv Yar: Ukraine wants to block the “door to Donbass”.".^[9] Greetings, Zerbrxsler (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's a step in the right direction. Hopefully we'll see more mainstream sources in the near future.

"battle of avdiivka" - 92500

"battle of bakhmut" - 90000

"battle of chasiv yar" - 18000 2605:A601:5553:B000:3097:E273:F245:AED0 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Odyssey (Smith)[edit]

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

I could not find any relevant sources that are not listings of the sheet music for sale. Therefore, this does not meet the notability guideline. GenericUser24 (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GenericUser24 (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also could not find any significant coverage in WP:LIBRARY or elsewhere. Jfire (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines cited in the article, and none found on searching either. JBW (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too: very good music but appears to mostly have been an original review of music by the article author, possibly based on the programming notes. Can’t really be covered with the current availability of sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skadovsk polling center bombing[edit]

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

Definitively not notable. See 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents for a list of similar events. This one didn't have any fatal casualties. The only element of notability is that it was done by Ukrainian partisans which isn't enough as I see it. Super Ψ Dro 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salfanto (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is one of the many attacks that took place during the Russian presidential election. This seems like it can be merged into that article, especially considering there were no fatalities. The only major impact it seemed to have was to "cancel further elections in the city but allow voting at a place of residence," (from the Skadovsk polling center bombing article) but I think this can be covered in the section of the election article. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Russian presidential election#Incidents per Gödel. An event appearing the in the news does not warrant it receiving its own article, especially when it can be covered in the article of the broader topic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. D. Collins[edit]

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

Pure self-promotion. I find 2 hyper-local "articles" about her and nothing else. Zero coverage beyond that in reliable secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Poetry, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure that the Wiki article is "self-promotion", as the original creator says "Added basic information on artist CD Collins that can be found on her website", but it certainly lacks any third-party coverage except of the fact that a documentary was forthcoming in 2019. They may be just a newbie editor thinking they've found a notable topic to write about, rather than having any WP:COI. PamD 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but given the lack of secondary coverage and the style of the writing, I think it's likely the editor was someone who knows the subject in some way. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. PamD 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article would need a lot of work before it could be considered notable. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 03:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL now that said article has been created. History remains if there is material that still needs to be merged. It is unclear to this closer. Star Mississippi 02:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of starting quarterbacks in the XFL[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in secondary sources. I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, American football, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a courtesy ping to @BeanieFan11, who removed the initial PROD. Let'srun (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun: I found some lists of the quarterbacks in the league, but not specifically for starting quarterbacks. Care to share the lists you found? If there is sufficient sourcing to establish notability for a list of XFL quarterbacks, but not specifically the starting quarterbacks, then perhaps this could be a "keep and move" situation to something like List of XFL quarterbacks. Left guide (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found the same one you did. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that, within the context of other articles about the league, that there is substantial information about starting quarterbacks' roles. Going back to 2020, there was a lot of reporting on starting QB salary being higher than other position players, which in and of itself establishes notability. I'll add that one to the article and others. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see, none of the sources in the current version of the article count towards the notability of the article topic, since they appear to discuss NFL quarterbacks (and to a lesser extent quarterbacks as a general concept), so the sources are supporting the article in a synthetic manner and the actual list is unsourced original research, but I found this source that specifically addresses XFL quarterbacks. Left guide (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough specific coverage of starting quarterbacks at any point in time to justify a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:Otherstuffexists as there's an article for Lists of starting quarterbacks in the USFL, List of starting quarterbacks in the National Football League and List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the USFL article features nearly identical text to the one currently being discussed and is at substantial risk of a similar deletion nomination should the original nominee so choose. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is also part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, it isn't a reason to keep this one. If anything, it's a reason to consider deleting some of those too (though NFL Superbowl starting QBs do get a lot of coverage, unlike QBs in this league). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By pointing out WP:OSE (which I will continue to do), I am not suggesting keep or delete. I am merely pointing it out for possible merge. Ignoring the existence of other articles seems irrational to me. We should be aware of everything relevant in the main space. Whether you want to merge, keep or delete is up to you. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently structured due to complete lack of sourcing, ergo no establishment of notability and possible listcruft. In theory, going through individual quarterbacks' articles alone, there is enough material and sourcing to justify a list article—but I would prefer, given the structure of the UFL, that if such sourcing is established, that it be merged into its USFL counterpart, given that it is a historical list (see also: Timeline of the XFL and USFL) and that now-defunct teams be included as Former USFL and XFL teams in a separate section. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I have made some revisions to the article to make the lede more relevant to the XFL in particular in hopes of establishing notability and withdraw my vote to delete. My suggestion to merge remains. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL. Cards84664 01:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we don't have sources for this group, it should not exist as a standalone list, nor should should it be merged elsewhere.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have been added to establish notability so that issue has been addressed. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I see sources for some individual entries, but nothing treating the list topic as a group. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual articles discussing within the context of being a starting quarterback in the XFL/UFL. Individual articles discussing the relevance and importance of the position (especially in regard to salary). That crosses into GNG territory and no longer qualifies the topic for deletion.

If one must rise to the order of picking nits over subject focus of sources, it likely does not rise to the level where deletion would be warranted. That said, restructuring of the artlcle if/when the merger is proposed, I would like to see it trimmed to a comparable standard as the NFL starting quarterback in that the current/most recent example is the only one that needs to be listed, as there likely is nowhere near enough sourcing—at least anything rising beyond ROUTINE coverage—to warrant such listcruft. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is an article on the starting QB position in the XFL, not a list of them. To qualify for NLIST, that topic must have GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: There are these two sources treating XFL quarterbacks as a group, (one of which is referenced in this article) but I don't know if it's enough to establish notability. At a minimum, it should qualify for a merge though. Left guide (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those is about XFL starting QBs as a position, not a list of individual QBs; in fact it only mentions one player. The second is not an independent source as ESPN has a broadcast contract with the XFL and therefore has a strong financial incentive to cover the league. The article is also not on starting QBs, so its coverage is irrelevant anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion seems to be ongoing between those editors arguing for Delete and those advocating a Merge. I'll just add that I assume the proposed Merge target article is Lists of starting quarterbacks in the USFL as there is no article at Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL page title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The XFL and USFL themselves are merging into a new UFL league, hence the intended merge target. Cards84664 16:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A new merge target has to be created first, regardless of the fact that the leagues have merged. I still oppose a merge since I don't see the sourcing needed to support it. Let'srun (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cards84664, I didn't say that the subject didn't exist, just that the article didn't exist. We can't merge this article into a nonexistent page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, UFL because USFL and XFL are merging next season (see United Football League (2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for either delete or better merge target consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why not just rename Lists of starting quarterbacks in the USFL to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL and merge XFL to the new UFL article? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds too complicated for an AFD closure. That is something that can be handled if this article is Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the intent of merging this and the USFL article together to form Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL. This can be done off AFD as descrbed above by Liz. Frank Anchor 20:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect to the now-created Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL. It looks like the necessary content is already merged into the target, but anything else that would need merged can be pulled from the article history. Frank Anchor 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also applaud User:Cards84664 for WP:BOLDLY creating the UFL list and incorporating much of the content from the former XFL and USFL lists. Frank Anchor 14:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close as moot - Merged to Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL. Cards84664 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cards84664: Such as move should not occur until this AfD is concluded. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cards84664 please do not redirect or move articles while an AFD discussion is still open. Consensus still has yet to be determined. Thanks for starting an article though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lists of starting quarterbacks in the UFL has now been created. Would a simple Redirect be appropriate or is there still content that needs to be Merged?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - all content has been merged and updated. Cards84664 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cards84664, I realize that you think this, in part because you created the article, I would just like to hear opinions from other editors. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cards84664. If the merged article does not meet GNG (or other guidelines) then that should go to AfD. Rlendog (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new UFL list. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 03:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Pareigis[edit]

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

No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 22:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I expanded the article and added non-primary, third-party sources. And even before that, I think the article should have simply been given a non-primary source hatnote instead of opening an AFD discussion.--Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was tagged for half-a year prominently at the very top huge template. Meaning nobody cared. Well, I know AfD is not a cleanup... - Altenmann >talk 20:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that no one cared about independent sources; It's rather that the subject of this article is not very well-known.

However, the hatnote was there, meaning the issue had already been pointed out, so there was no valid reason for starting an AFD discussion in the first place, at least in my opinion. Anyway, the article now contains independent sources, so I think the AFD should be closed now.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you have it upside down. Here how it normally goes in English Wikipedia: (1) Issue of notability pointed out (2) Was not addressed for half a year (3) AfD as nonnotable. (4) Should not be closed right away, because people have to verify other important criterion, namely "significant coverage". - Altenmann >talk 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you gave for issuing the AFD was not a concern regarding notability, but the lack of independent sources, which is not the case anymore. If you now decide to change the reason for your proposed deletion to notability concerns, you should at least explain why you think that the relevance of the person is not sufficiently presented in the article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DIE WELT, BUNTE.de - interviews - not an independent source per enwiki rules (although parts of such can be WP:RS)
DW 2013: "Jana Pareigis is one of the faces of DW's German-language journal" - not an independent source for notability purposes. This kind of profiles are common for various employers of media outlets regardless notability.
Same for BMZ and ZDF blurbs
DW 2017 : "In our film "Afro.Deutschland" she talks to black people in Germany about her experiences." - self-source
Berliner Morgenpost -- interview
ZEP - "Pareigis' foreword for German translation of James Baldwin's volume of essays
Reaffirming - no independent sources, sorry. - Altenmann >talk 19:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When saying independent sources, I was referring to the sources which were not from German public broadcasters, which is her employer.

Die Welt, Bunte, Berliner Morgenpost, and Zeitschrift für internationale Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik are independent sources in this regard. The fact that she was involved in the creation of the articles by being interviewed does neither show a lack of neutrality (the magazines were free to ask her what they wanted, and the articles don't consist entirely of an interview, but also text sections about her in which they were free to write what they wanted) nor notability (when several well-known magazines in Germany publish an article containing an interview with her, it shows that she's a person of public interest in that country). Also, Wikipedia:Independent sources does nowhere explicitly state that interviews in third-party magazines can't be considered independent sources by Wikipedia standards. The guideline page states that "Independent sources have editorial independence (advertisers do not dictate content) and no conflicts of interest (there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication)." Both criteria are fine regarding said sources.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. In the absence of solid sources, I am deleting this. If at a later point in time sources crop up, this can be undeleted by any admin. Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pothohar Sultanate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pothohar Sultanate

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

The page previously used British-era texts which I removed as per the consensus for Raj-era sources. Now the page has been renamed as the "Pothohar Sultanate" which seems to be an entirely fictional title as a search on Google Scholar, JSTOR, Books etc shows that no such polity by that name has ever existed. For this reason, as the article's name is completely fictional and the article is unsourced, I propose that it be deleted. Ixudi (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources do refer to the rulers of Pothohar as Sultan. A Sultan, according to majority of the dictionaries, is the sovereign of a Sultanate or a Muslim state. Lightningblade23 (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, may even be a hoax161.69.71.25 (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Early revisions of the article refer to it as the "Gakhar kingdom" and later "Gakhar sultanate". Where does the name "Pothohar" for the entity come from? Looking into the name of their ruler, Muqarrab Khan, I was able to find a few scholarly sources.

^[10]

^[11]

^[12]

Doing the same for Google books brings up some results as well. Also found this article, and while it probably isn't the best source it does cite more citations than are worthy looking into. ^[13]

All in all, it does seem like a state did exist here but it seems unclear to me if the polity ever even had a name or not, but at least to me "Gakhar" seems more accurate of a name than Pothohar. Pladica (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. An article already exists for Gakhar however so either the contents of this article should be merged into Gakhar or considering this is unsourced, deleted entirely and details of the Gakhar state added into the original article perhaps? Ixudi (talk) 12:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no sourcing available or on the way. I'm not merging or redirecting without some form of RS. Better to start over with sources when found. BusterD (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tadao Ando. I see a consensus to Merge this article. After the Merge is completed, you can take the Redirect to RFD to discuss its deletion and point to this AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27712 Pacific Coast Highway[edit]

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

Notability is WP:BLP1E only. Other coverage is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. TarnishedPath^talk 01:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This real estate is sitting on the WP:COAT of its owners. On its own, despite its architect, the subject fails WP:GNG because it has nothing notable to it other than its current owners. Its title itself is a serious BLP privacy concern (not rectifiable by normal editing without oversight). It would even be a BLP problem for subsequent non-notable owners (and I mean: *totally private* people with their home address as a Wikipedia title). JFHJr (㊟) 02:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And WP:NOTNEWS. Point back to the fact that this subject has zero sustained coverage over its existence. JFHJr (㊟) 02:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks like a solid GNG pass, not really sure what these other two are talking about (for example none of the coverage seems to fall under WP:ROUTINE and BLP1E is part of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons... and the subject here is one of the most expensive houses in the world not a person). Will expand from coverage not currently in article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back, it seems to me that all the coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE concerns the sale of the property to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, making this WP:BLP1E. An article doesn't have to be a WP:BLP itself to have BLP content in it. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this article is not the sale (an event), this article is about the house. BLP1E does not apply to objects. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sale (an event) is the only notability the article has. Remove the sale and there would be no article. This article is about two BLP's house. Therefore BLP1E applies. TarnishedPath^talk 02:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I don't accept that extremely flimsy logic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That... isn't what BLP1E is for. It simply doesn't apply to articles that aren't themselves BLPs. (Agree that this probably shouldn't have an article but BLP1E is not the reason why). Elli (talk | contribs) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say BLP1E isn't applicable to a building. Everything here, including talk pages, is subject to WP:BLP and its collateral policies, especially when it's under a notability question. I'll also note the event is not just the purchase, but amounts to mere ownership, and "events" may last a long time. That's the point of seeking enduring notability in the real estate itself and not the owner, or even the sale, in terms of a standalone article. JFHJr (㊟) 01:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP applies everywhere, but the effect of WP:BLP1E is only on biographical articles of low profile individuals. The text of that section explicitly cautions so: WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals. I note that we do, however, reach essentially the same outcome around enduring notability; I via WP:N. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house’ The house is notable- is has a notable architect and broke the record for its sale price, but is currently titled with the buildings address. WP:BLPPRIVACY says “articles should not include postal addresses” and “If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it”. In fact, I’ll move the page right now, so this might disrupt this AfD listing.TheSpacebook (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need WP:OVERSIGHT with a page move, right? Can't have the address in the title history. May as well WP:BLOWITUP *if* the subject (the real estate) is independently notable. Meh? JFHJr (㊟) 02:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Notable persons's belonging: WP:INHERIT takes a lot. I don't think this wins. But maybe it might. We shall see. Thanks as always, and cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I struck your move proposal since you went ahead and did that during AfD. Usually, it's best to be patient enough for an outcome. JFHJr (㊟) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've un-struck your move comment, since someone stepped in and undid your mid-discussion page move. Let's be patient and wait for this to reach a consensus. If it helps not to watch, don't watch! JFHJr (㊟) 22:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect of the original title to Beyoncé or Jay-Z, whichever can be determined to have a more encyclopedic connection with the property. The house is not notable because $200 million was paid for it; it is noteworthy that these people bought a house for that much, but this would have been true no matter which house they paid that amount for. It is one of countless high-priced houses owned by wealthy entertainers, designed by an architect who designs high-end houses. Most of these sales get some kind of coverage in the trade papers, and some make it into more general papers due to interest in the celebrity, not the house. None of these things make it independently notable. BD2412 T 03:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happens to this (moved) name space, and the previous name space with the address? Shall we delete them both? Due to the page move during AfD discussion, there are now two unneeded name spaces, IMO. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have the tools to remove privacy-invading content from article/redirect histories. BD2412 T 12:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect from original title only to Tadao Ando. The new title is pure gossip journalism and inadmissable under BLP as a privacy violation. The house is marginally notable on grounds of the high price (additional coverage that wasn't there when I looked at the article and went searching: Architectural Digest, SFGate); the high price is in part due to the architect, and there is some coverage of the original owners' use of it to display their art collection, e.g. this spat over a large outside sculpture, Malibu Times. It can be a referenced line in the list of his works, to which "27712 Pacific Coast Highway" is a reasonable redirect, and there is no reason under BLP to expunge the history providing the one line does not name the current owners. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Failing a delete, I think this is the best target page for a redirect proposal. Thanks, Yngvadottir! JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, that this article recently became active as a result of a discussion on the BLP policy talk page, it may interest you: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses TheSpacebook (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JFHJr. I found it listed at Tadao Ando#Projects, unlinked it, ref'd it, named it for the clients and moved it to a different year based on one of those sources. (Most press coverage of the sale appears to go back to a TMZ report and judging by widespread omission, that didn't give the completion year. I haven't hunted for it.) I note that there's another Malibu house with a star purchaser already listed, also unlinked and listed by the commissioning owner. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tadao Ando as one of his noteworthy accomplishments. Most of the participants in this debate have made valid points, but I find WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT to be the most relevant policies here. The recent sale indeed made the news, though that "news" doesn't get too far beyond standard celebrity gossip. It could be argued that the record price is an achievement for the architect rather than the buyers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the seller not the architect? The property was primarily valued at the astronomical sum because of its location not its architect, note that the previous most expensive property sold in California was the one *next door* which was not an Ando. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Merge anyway because the house under discussion is not notable for all the reasons stated by everyone. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that WP:ONEEVENT & WP:BLP1E apply to people, not properties. Rotary Engine ^talk 04:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you know who you're responding to and when. I did not cite WP:BLP1E myself. When I cited WP:ONEEVENT yesterday, the article was called "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house" and it was full of text about those two celebrities, so both of those policies are/were relevant anyway. Meanwhile, moving the article's title in the middle of a deletion discussion sure doesn't help much. You guys figure it out. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, how would either the title or the content make WP:ONEEVENT relevant? ONEEVENT is about "People notable for only one event" and neither of the celebrities mentioned fall into that category. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the principal undergirding WP:ONEEVENT would not apply to a building that was only covered in the media in connection with a single event. An example would be Francklyn Cottage (where President James A. Garfield died, having been taken there in hopes of recovery from a gunshot would). BD2412 T 23:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If, in independent, reliable sources, there is sufficient depth of documentation of Francklyn Cottage to satisfy WP:GNG, why should an article not be written on it? Similar to Garfield Tea House; presumably also only noted because of its link to Garfield's death. Rotary Engine ^talk 01:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with redirect from original title only to Tadao Ando; per Yngvadottir et al. Mention the record setting purchase at Beyoncé &/or Jay-Z; likely without the address. At best, barely borderline notable as a separate topic - there is an absence of independent, reliable, secondary sourcing providing in-depth documentation of the subject. Certainly, however, noteworthy in the articles mentioned. Rotary Engine ^talk 10:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I am also comfortable with a merge without redirect. I am not comfortable with a redirect from "Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house". Rotary Engine ^talk 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Fails WP:NBUILD which requires significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Rotary Engine ^talk 07:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Per the various concerns expressed here I have restored the page to its original title. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I welcome this, had I have known the address couldn’t be redacted through oversight, I wouldn’t have moved it. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. JFHJr (㊟) 00:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an ATD is fine, but the house's notability is essentially inherited and fails GNG on its own. SportingFlyer T·C 16:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's only noteworthy at most, with the WP:WEIGHT of a short mention in the owner/s article/s and/or the architect's article. I'm not seeing a compelling reason for a redirect but realize others here want that. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many thanks to Primefac for reverting the article move and deleting the ill-advised title. I see the text has at some point been revised so that the intro is all about the current owners. Since I strongly disagree that their names are the basis for its notability and I'm advocating merge without history deletion, if nobody else does, I'm going to rewrite the article, returning it to its original focus on the record sale price and the architecture. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tadao Ando per those above. The current title (the home's street address) is more a BLP violation than titling it by its current occupants. Do any of the sources actually give the exact address? It looks like they're just saying "a home on the Pacific Coast Highway". If the structure doesn't have its own name then titling it by its notable residents seems entirely reasonable, and preferable to giving the exact location of a private residence as a title. But I agree that the recent coverage is not about the home but about who purchased it, and while we do usually keep information about record-setting things, I don't think "most expensive real estate" is really a valid record in this economy, and there's very little written about this from an architectural perspective. It amounts to celebrity gossip. On the other hand we have two articles about Taylor Swift's houses, so maybe it's valid, but it should be at a different title. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a thought, but if we were looking for a BLP-free title, something like 2014 Tadao Ando Pacific Coast Highway house would do it. BD2412 T 12:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading a potential consensus for a Merge to Tadao Ando, so another rename might not be necessary if said merge is carried out in a timely manner after close. TarnishedPath^talk 13:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aedy Moward[edit]

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

Can't seem to find any other sources on this guy besides the one Tempo article, which is an obit. Hence, unless somebody can find better sources of this guy's career, he fails WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the two book sources that are cited? In multiple AFDs, you seem to be discounting those without explanation. Jfire (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [42]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [43] [44]. Also for your information, an obituary is a biography [45]. And there's a plenty of sources about the subject [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], and more. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Removed, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE 20:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Pls maintain civility and no attacks! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes NACTOR through roles in Darah dan Doa, Enam Djam di Jogja, Oma Irama Penasaran, Lewat Djam Malam, Raja Dangdut, Si Mamad and Embun. Probably also passes GNG through sources in article. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Just open the G Books link....Can we please stop with those Afds about notable Indonesian actors?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NACTOR per above, and I fear a lack of due diligence before nominating. (reworded for civility) Toadspike (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To address your WP:BEFORE concerns here, I did take a look at Google Books here. The coverage on google books seemed to be largely tangential (getting mentioned on one page of a book on something else) or part of group coverage (film festivals). While it is true that there is a case for WP:NACTOR, it is not clear whether the actor in question really had "notable" roles in these films (given his characters almost never appear on the plot summaries), it may have been the case that he played secondary characters. This is one of the reasons I created AfD, to asses the notability of his roles and whether they are "significant". Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moward is listed as starring in all of the films mentioned above. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article are also enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I only listed films that currently have articles on English Wikipedia. Moward has starred in many more. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for better explaining your argument. I now understand your point of view better and acknowledge that this case is not very clear-cut.

The book in question appears to be a biographical dictionary of Indonesian film. Unfortunately, from Google Books, I cannot see his full entry; the table of contents shows it is less than one page long. But that Moward has his own entry means, for notability purposes, this is more than a "tangential" mention in a "book on something else" – this is a deliberate inclusion in a list of people significant to Indonesian film.

His winning a Citra Award for Best Supporting Actor, the highest honor in Indonesian film, speaks against the idea that he only played minor, insignificant characters, and he might even qualify under the first criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Toadspike (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike: No attacks following this thread I am disappointed in nom's lack of due diligence. Maintain WP's civility and if you have any issue with the editor, try sorting it out in the editors talk page and not on AFDs! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies to the nominator, I realize that was excessively harsh. Toadspike (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR. Toughpigs (talk) 21:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per toadspike and toughpigs JarrahTree 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Looking back, I feel my interpretation WP:NACTOR in this case was a bit conservative. Will withdraw nom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023. ✗plicit 00:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Yar Hussain grenade attack[edit]

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

Article created a day after the event. All sources are from April 2023, no lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as before, merge/redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023 PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2023, not a notable event in itself with significant retrospective coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Per the above recommendation — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of BBC children's television programmes#D. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Otter[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. only possible source i could find was https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/dr-otter-2001, but it's a dead link, not saved on wayback machine (but still indexed on google for some reason?). ltb d l (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also due to the fact that the article itself is entirely unreferenced. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not exactly entirely unreferenced (it only had no footnotes at all; now has 1.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_BBC_children's_television_programmes#D: if other sources are not easy to find. Not opposed to keep as this was broadcast on a major network. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Imbayago[edit]

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG, and with no lists for Zimbabwean cricketers there's no suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and should be removed. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henco Beukes[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There this quite lengthly profile, but it's only one source. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON but would have passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage but more needed for a WP:GNG pass, no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dandrè Delport[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although would have passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage, but I'm not sure that there is enough for a WP:GNG pass, with no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG.WmLawson (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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