< April 11	April 13 >

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein national badminton team[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, Badminton, and Liechtenstein. Fram (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relevant as national badminton team, at least same notability as the mentioned teams under participants in Football at the 2023 Island Games. National badminton championships are held in Liechtenstein since 1986, Badminton Europe member since 1993. Team mentions [1], [2], [3], [4]. --Florentyna (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability can be assumed as the national team. Sourcing is poor, but does not warrant deletion. I can work on addressing more odious elements in the coming days.TheBritinator (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's questionable whether "national team notability can be assumed" in every existing sport. It depends on the sport, and may also depend on the country (if the sport in question receives coverage there). Florentyna partially argues with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and not all of the coverage is significant or independent. Geschichte (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NTEAM is specifically clear that no sports team has "assumed notability": "This guideline does not provide any general criteria for the presumed notability of sports teams and clubs. Some sports have specific criteria. Otherwise, teams and clubs are expected to demonstrate notability by the general notability guideline." None of the sources identified above by Florentyna are secondary. Without evidence of notability this fails WP:GNG. I have had a brief look for sources but have not located significant secondary source coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No improvements in article since its nomination. Can we see an evaluation of sources brough to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per NTEAM and AusLondoner Wolfson5 (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NTEAM. Notability must not be assumed. Evidence of notability for this specific team is not clear or reliably sourced. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly weak merge into Liechtenstein § Sports, adding any above-decent sources while we're at it. (The sport we're discussing here reminds me of an English-dubbed Shimajiro episode I came across months back--but that's besides the point here. [Suffice to say I'm one of this anime's few fans in the West.]) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:59, 20 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 12:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Fernandes[edit]

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

Working author but doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR / WP:GNG. Unref blp. Boleyn (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 30 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!} 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 12 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. I can't close this as Soft Deletion due to its previous AFD but there also isn't a consensus here to Delete. With no future participation after two relisting, I'm closing this as No consensus as there is not enough (or any) participation other than the nominator to determine a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalia Novaes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable model. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Fashion. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 30 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!} 05:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 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 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie McBeath[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Ohio. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 30 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!} 01:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 12 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 Florida International University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FIU Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work[edit]

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

Subject is not independently notable (it does not inherit notability from its unquestionably notable parent organization ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Schools, Medicine, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Florida International University per longstanding practice as outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida International University as preferred WP:ATD and as suggested in my deprod comment. There doesn't appear to be any reliably sourced information to merge. I see some coverage of the school but not enough to clearly justify a standalone article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida International University as preferred WP:ATD.Dowrylauds (talk) 21:10, 19 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 Florida International University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida International University College of Arts and Sciences[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable (notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization) ElKevbo (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Florida International University per longstanding practice as outlined at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida International University as preferred WP:ATD and as suggested in my deprod comment. There doesn't appear to be any reliably cited material to merge. The name of the school now appears to be College of Arts, Sciences and Education so if this weren't AfD where we're not supposed to touch anything during discussion, I would move it to Florida International University College of Arts, Sciences and Education and then redirect it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Florida International University as preferred WP:ATD.Dowrylauds (talk) 21:11, 19 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 12:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agogo Florence Awhobiwom[edit]

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

WP:ADMASQ about a non-notable philanthropist who fails WP:BIO as far as I can see. The sources cited in this article at best just mention her or the foundation she has set up, or are just downright non-reliable. I can't see any reliable sources offering in-depth coverage on a search either. Java Hurricane 13:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are reliable sources, they don't actually relate to the subject. Fails WP:BIO and notability isn't proven. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are, read the whole sources. I just changed the page name to a name it is mostly known with. If you still feel it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form let me know. I am trying to add impactful women in my society because wikipedia makes more women biographies. Ahola .O (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it is a stub, so it can be grown with time. she's notable. WikiProject Women Ahola .O (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Ahola .O (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTVOTE. While your cause is noble, you still have to provide adequate sources to prove that she meets notability. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, She is known to be the youngest individual to own a band at the Calabar Carnival, her band is The Florence Agogo Foundation (FAF Band). I just included this line and referenced it. Ahola .O (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things. i could sent some sources here that were not allowed to be cited on wikipedia Ahola .O (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no sources that has significant coverage on this individual as they are about her foundation and press releases. Best, Reading Beans 03:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reading Beans OK. So is she notable to be on Wikipedia or she is not at this time? If she is and you feel the citations are the problem let me know. Ahola .O (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Problem of SIGCOV. An article about a humanitarian that meets no notability. The sources I found were either on another subject or a line mentioning her. Purely out like this, "may be notable in the future". Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, coverage seems moderately significant as per refs and a quick search.--Ortizesp (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ahola .O (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately the BLP of almost every woman in West Africa opens with the claim that they are an entrepreneur and philanthropist, followed up by the claim that they are some form of ambassador for something. All of this is supported by churnalism and client media. This formula is followed again in this article. Being the youngest person to own a band at a carnival, in contrast, is a unique and novel claim, but unless her ownership of this band is the subject of sustained in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources it doesn’t help demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ hello @Mccapra churnalism? i do not agree.Also it is not just any carnival, it is Calabar carnival, the biggest carnival in Africa. You can also google search her. I don't know why you had to make the statement about west African women but i feel as a young woman coming up she should be considered. You know what? delete it already, i am tired. Ahola .O (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahola .O, stop bludgeoning the deletion discussion process. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The subject is not notable. Notability is not inherited. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promotional piece and fails WP:BIO. Her achievements do not add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 18 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. A procedural close, as the ink has not yet dried over the previous AfD, and the sources identified there have not yet been added to the article. If the nom believes the previous close (in which they participated) does not reflect consensus, they should have taken this to DRV, or waited six months--not four days--before renominating. Owen× ☎ 20:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inshorts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources talk about the founders and the amountof money raised for their product but very little about the product itself. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and India. Owen× ☎ 17:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Software, Websites, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [5] was closed four days before this AFD was opened with a suggestion that sources mentioned in that discussion should be added to the article. This nomination feels premature. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Why start a new AFD so soon after the previous one was just closed? Especially as it had a Keep closure, not a No consensus closure. This may warrant a procedural Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOTFREEWEBHOST. I only see one reliable and independent source about this company; that is not enough coverage. Also, much of the text is about one business person who helped to found it, rather than the company itself. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one you think meets GNG/NCORP? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an entire 19-page-long chapter in an OUP book completely about this topic: doi:10.1093/oso/9780198879657.003.0005. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Contributor892z (talk) 12:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, a TROUT to the nominator for bringing this AfD 4 days after the prior one was closed as keep, and compounding the issue by not ensuring that the sources identified in that recent discussion (in which they participated) were either added to the article or listed here. It just creates more work for the limited group of editors who participate at AfD. It also makes closing more difficult because the closer has no easy way to determine if those sources were considered by delete !voters. Aside from that, as Asilvering noted (and echoing AusLondonder, who identified the link in the previous discussion) there is an entire chapter about the company in an Oxford University Press publication, so presumably no self-publishing issues there. I cannot read the chapter, but the abstract strongly suggests WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH are met - It's even titled "Inshorts: A Success Story of Short-Form Journalism" and the TOC on the sidebar suggests thorough coverage. Two other links AusLondonder found and not mentioned yet here and again here, both of which appear superior to the existing sources in the article. I'm at weak keep because I can't read the Oxford Press chapter and I'm not certain whether the newspapers are among those known to accept paid content. But under the circumstance I can't get to delete without those answers. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sepo (band)[edit]

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

no evident notability in the article, apart from having a song used in a documentary. I can only find coverage on punkglobe.com, and it's unclear if this is a reputable source given the outdated appearance of their website. InDimensional (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable band. There is almost no independent coverage in reliable sources about the band and its members or their music. If it was indeed founded in 2012, you'd expect some online coverage, of which there is almost none. Mooonswimmer 04:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NBAND, but also WP:RS - there are no reliable sources about the band. Having a song in a film is rarely enough to make a band automatically notable, unless it is nominated for an Oscar. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 15 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!} 22:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumbirai Thierry Nhamo[edit]

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Current sources consist of homepages of news websites, and articles written by the subject. Doesn't seem to have any independent or significant coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 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!} 22:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. Mooonswimmer 04:12, 13 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!} 22:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Drop Kick[edit]

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

Does not pass notability per WP:BAND as their main accomplishments are having songs used in a 2006 video game and a 2005 film. A google search for this band brings up no coverage at all. InDimensional (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Japan, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing popped up in my search. Mach61 15:30, 19 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 Ken Carson. This closure can be revisited if the song becomes more notable according to Wikipedia's music guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overseas (Ken Carson song)[edit]

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

Too soon - song was apparently only released today, therefore cannot meet WP:NSONG - no indication of independent WP:SIGCOV or notability. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ken Carson: While I would reject the notion that there's no indication of SIGCOV, given both Hypebeast and HotNewHipHop have articles on it, I do agree that there's not enough to justify an article at this time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ken Carson for now. The article can be restored once it receives more coverage, and perhaps if it charts. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 19:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The song has now begun charting, if that matters. Ss112 05:40, 19 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!} 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Darkzone[edit]

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

Totally unreferenced article. No significant coverage of the artist on the web apart from a brief mention in a Complex article "The Best Licensed Songs Used in Video Game Commercials". The talk page suggest that the article was written as a class assignment. InDimensional (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Germany. InDimensional (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see anything about this performer. Discogs, Soundcloud, the usual streaming sites. The link mentioned in the comment above mine is all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 12 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!} 22:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Azerbaijan, Canberra[edit]

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

Another embassy article that fails WP:GNG. There's really not much about this embassy that wouldn't fit under Australia–Azerbaijan relations: the only coverage I could find was this non-independent press release regarding the creation of the embassy; this small clash between Azeris and Armenians outside of the embassy; and the fact that the embassy staff imported over 40,000 cigarettes and lots of booze, possibly to sell it to the black market. All in all, there's nothing really noteworthy *about the embassy* that makes me think we should be keeping this article, and all the material I dug up could end up at Australia–Azerbaijan relations. I think a redirect here would be a good fit. Pilaz (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Azerbaijan, and Australia. Pilaz (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, nothing independent and nothing of substance GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:51, 13 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!} 22:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hosoi Bros[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sharing the stage with bands with Wiki pages doesn't mean notability. I can't see in what format they were featured in the Oct '13 issue of Decibel, but they weren't mentioned in the cover. A search on the web for their quite unique band name brings up no significant coverage. InDimensional (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. I'm not finding any significant coverage in an online search. For what it's worth, none of their songs have more than a few thousand views on YouTube, which is nothing. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:05, 13 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!} 22:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yeong-uk[edit]

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

Not hit of SIGCOV on google news aside from database results which is lot a secondary source or WP:RS. The articles didn't meet WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSBIO and WP:SPORTSCRIT for the time. May be notable in the future! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Korea, and South Korea. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 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!} 22:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Scott[edit]

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

There has been a notability tag since October 2021. The first sentence of the article is "Hunter Scott is best known for the research he did on the sinking of USS Indianapolis as a sixth-grade student." I would go so far to say that he is only known for this accomplishment. As such, this is a BLP1E and the article should be deleted. He has not done any academic work since so no further historical work, so does not meet the criteria for academics. In an effort to add information so the article focuses on more facts, it also mentions he is a naval aviator. However, it provides no context to presume that his naval aviation career would meet GNG. An incredibly accomplished individual, nevertheless Wikipedia's policies indicate, in my opinion, there should not be an article on the subject. Mpen320 (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 15 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 Withdrawn. New sources found are sufficient, no delete votes.(non-admin closure)‎ StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dazzle (video recorder)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT, lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. The best I could find was a CNET review of one of the models and some trivial mentions in books that amount to "it is recording software that you can use." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a litany of sources from over the years. Sustained significant coverage exists. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: per DigitalIceAge. Checking on ProQuest and Newspapers.com returns many results, indicating WP:SIGCOV throughout the years. The article was just never expanded upon, which DigitalIceAge has now done. B3251 (talk) 01:55, 19 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!} 23:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raakh (unreleased film)[edit]

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

Film was announced in 2003, over 20 years ago, and has not yet been released. None of sources are current and give no indication as to why this unreleased film is notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 20:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Two unreliable sources and two reliable from bollywoodhungama has one with no reference to film and other from 2005 that talks about replacement of an actress. Films that have not yet been released should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Announced 20 years ago, there are not much sources found, no need to keep it anymore, fails WP:NFILM. Grabup (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment film is not released but if the film is shot I think the article can be kept that too needs source, now coming back to why; Because it starred veteran Indian actor Mithun Chakraborty AnkkAnkur (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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!} 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loan Castano[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Tried a .fr website search, can only find match reports. Plenty of mentions from this site [6], but nothing beyond mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who has played in the Super League. 3 sources.Fleets (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 sources. Zero of them showing WP:SIGCOV. I strongly support deletion unless something better is presented. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:15, 13 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!} 23:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking Harold[edit]

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

The closest I could find to notability was this anecdote about the band, but it's only a few sentences and I can't guarantee the reliability of the book. Past that, I saw passing mentions but nothing else of worth. Redirecting to Tim David Kelly would make sense, though his article isn't much more promising in the realm of notability and could potentially go at any time as well if there's nothing more to be found there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only coverage I'm able to find is a prnewswire.com piece from 2014, which does not satisfy the criteria for multiple pieces of significant coverage required for WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@InDimensional PR Newswire just publishes unedited press releases and does not provide any notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the above. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:28, 17 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!} 23:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Gary Gait[edit]

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

Subject is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, this information is best saved for sports databases. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, pretty clear violation. Also, the more important info already appears in Gary Gait so doesn't need a merge. grungaloo (talk) 22:07, 13 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!} 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Buzinova[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 Belarusian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Belarus. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have just been a speedy delete. I just googled about the footballer and there was nothing notable I could see.--Meligirl5 (talk) 18:03, 16 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!} 23:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerrit van Wyk[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 or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:19, 12 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) 19:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:54, 13 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!} 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of Cyber-Space[edit]

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

No inherent claim of notability and filled with unsourced original research. Any verifiable information could be a simple mention within Ahmad Kamal. ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Law, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Individual legal monographs are rarely notable, because they don't get a lot of reviews or citations. Bearian (talk) 16:40, 15 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!} 23:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Massyn[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 or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 12 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) 19:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of coverage, and there's a couple of bits in French media as well, but not sure there's enough here for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:53, 13 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!} 23:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intensified submarine warfare[edit]

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

Non-notable term used in a few history books. No clear agreed upon meaning (googling finds authors using it in the plain english sense to refer to the 1915 campaign and the proposed 1917 campaign, not the period the article talks about), and not apparently used except by those authors. Also the article is currently factually problematic, as many writers consider prize rules to be essentially in place in this period and certainly do not agree that submarines were "virtually ineffective". Fangz (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact might be only used in a single history book, the second source listed on the page finds no reference to the term in google books. Fangz (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fangz (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, can't find any good sources using this name, just few passing mentions. Artem.G (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you can enumerate only a couple of books that use the term in isolation, it is not a suitable article topic. Compare to Unrestricted submarine warfare as an actual, solidly documented concept. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:06, 19 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!} 23:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COAS meeting with Ulema[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. delete as this clearly fails WP:NEVENTS —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Politics, and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously the kind of thing that belongs at Asim_Munir#Chief_of_Army_Staff_(2022-present), not in a standalone article. Selective merge in a relevant manner. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 12 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 Montserrat Championship. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Montserrat[edit]

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

Zero sources. Duplicates content at Montserrat Championship. Arguably fails WP:NOT DIRECTORY as "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." AusLondonder (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montserrat Championship – Unnecessary fork. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it very likely this is a conceivable search term for someone looking for information about the Montserrat Championship nor does it meet the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. AusLondonder (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that the Montserrat league is a tiny championship, and redirecting to the session with participating clubs avoids recreating the article. Svartner (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless redirecting if you ask me. Govvy (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't have to bring others into something this obvious, just be WP:BOLD and redirect it, redirects don't hurt Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Montserrat Championship#Current clubs. fails WP:NLIST as teams do not have SIGCOV as a group. Frank Anchor 19:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST. There's not many teams listed, none of them are very notable, and they all play in an obscure league. None of which helps this list pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montserrat Championship - the 'football clubs in X' is an established series, so it is a possible search term and it being red might lead to re-creation attempts. Giant Snowman 09:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montserrat Championship per above. Anwegmann (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid list, and part of a larger established structure of List of teams in jurisdiction. No real reason to delete. The WP:NOTDIRECTORY argument doesn't really exist here since the list necessarily contains the context. SportingFlyer T·C 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because other lists of potentially notable teams in other jurisdictions exist does not mean this list is appropriate, particularly given the complete absence of sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, SportingFlyer. Anwegmann (talk) 15:49, 19 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) 16:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lui Morais[edit]

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

Sources are entirely works by him, not works about him. Article is on the global title blacklist due to cross-wiki spamming * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, Poetry, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This truely fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources are independent of the subject. Redivivus carmina and Laboratório de letras are just personal blogspots.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I only see hits for a soccer player Junior Morais, nothing about this person. I don't see notability. Most sources used are non RS as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the Journal de Poesia biography looked like it might be independent evidence of notability, but the Journal seems more a directory of every Brazillian poet with thousands listed (the "A" list is over 400 long), so not particularly selective or confiring of notability. I didn't see much else beyond this. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing demonstrates WP:RELIABLE sources independent of the subject and fails WP:GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:31, 17 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 Hadlow Down. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadlow Down Parish Council[edit]

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England covering a village. Parish councils are rarely notable - there are more than 10,000 in England. No secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hadlow Down as an alternative to deletion given the content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hadlow Down as preferred WP:ATD and as suggested in my deprod. ~Kvng (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing worth merging. Desertarun (talk) 19:35, 19 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) 05:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordula Kropp[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an academic, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for academics. As always, academics are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show sourcing that properly verifies that they meet certain specific criteria for inclusion -- but this has no footnotes at all, and just contextlessly lists a couple of primary sources (i.e. her own faculty profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers and a directory entry) that aren't support for notability.
This was, further, created in draftspace by a brand new user and then immediately moved into mainspace by the same user without WP:AFC review practically the moment they had accumulated 10 edits for the purposes of gaining autoconfirmed privileges -- which is not the proper process for article creation either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have any third-party sourcing besides her own staff profiles from directly affiliated entities. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a translation of the corresponding article in German at de:Cordula Kropp. A Google Scholar search shows various publications with each publication's number of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a page being a translation of a page in another language Wikipedia is not in and of itself grounds for keeping it — in order to be kept, the page has to be properly referenced, not just "existing in the German Wikipedia". Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see her citation count and h-index at https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=r-iCYUkAAAAJ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The citation counts linked above are not high enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, so I think something else is needed. The article lists several books, but most of those appear to be edited volumes. If we can find multiple published reviews each of more than one authored book, that could be enough to make the case for WP:AUTHOR notability instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. I think this is a classic example of where the editor should be asked to improve the article so it meets notability requirements, which as mentioned by David Eppstein it might, and also they also need to ensure it is properly formatted and sourced. I think deletion is too harsh, I would have started first with tagging and marking a few places for improvement with a NPP message to the originators. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to draft will do nothing at all to change whether the subject is notable. And "so it meets notability requirements" exhibits a misunderstanding of what notability means. It is not articles that meet notability requirements, it is their subjects. If the subject is notable, she is notable regardless of the state of the article. If she is not, she is not. Since we're at AfD, we should decide the issue. Draftifying, after reaching AfD, has the appearance of being a cowardly way of saying "let's hope the author goes away so we can delete it in another 6 months without discussion". Draftifying can sometimes be useful in the situation where we have a clearly-notable subject and a clearly-unready article about them, but that's not the case here. It is not article improvement that we need – the article is in ok shape for what its sources provide – but a determination of whether the subject actually is notable or not. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, we have very different views on this. As you stated, "If we can find multiple published reviews each of more than one authored book, that could be enough to make the case for WP:AUTHOR notability instead." I agree with you that the case is not made for notability as yet. To me WP:BURDEN matters, and I consider "notability" to be on a par with "verifiability". The wording for the originator after Draftification is exactly relevant here -- "please improve"

I view deleting as very harsh, it is unlikely that the page will ever be revised. I consider it a last resort; as I said above, I think that an AfD nomination should not have been done. Just because this is an AfD discusion does not mean that is all we can vote for, WP:Ignore all rules is relevant IHMO. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- one of the few Professorial doctors in a large department at one of the major German research universities. Her position is really akin to a named chair at a major US institution, which is a clear WP:PROF pass. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Chair of Sociology" (actually of Sociology V) at the University of Stuttgart. (See more detailed description here). For me, this satisfies academic notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the subject holds a major designation of a major university. Apparent WP:PROF pass. X (talk) 19:15, 19 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) voorts (talk/contributions) 03:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Save Max Sports Centre[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a local sports facility, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for sports facilities. As always, sports facilities are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but this is "referenced" entirely to primary source content self-published by the city council, with absolutely no evidence of media coverage shown at all -- and while it was only just recently tagged for notability issues, it has existed in this state since 2008 without seeing any better referencing added. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. The article is not even written in encyclopedic way. It is written as notes- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- GiantSnowman (talk · contribs), I have provided sources below. Cunard (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jen, Leslie (2007-11-01). "Bend It Like Brampton". Canadian Architect. Vol. 52, no. 11. pp. 22–26. ProQuest 213347214. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
  According to the About page, "Canadian Architect is the journal of record of two national professional associations: the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society and is the official magazine of each association – carrying both the RAIC Journal and the AIA Canada Journal within the pages of Canadian Architect magazine." Leslie Jen is the former associate editor for Canadian Architect.
  The review notes: "A predominantly white and silver colour palette is offset by the judicious employment of vibrant saturated colours in a plethora of applications, colours specifically chosen to communicate the active and energetic colours associated with athletics and athletic attire. To that end, horizontal bands of coloured glass are used sparingly on the curtain walls to animate the faades and to create jewel-toned splashes of light on the interior. High-contrast black and white tiles define the floor surfaces, a clever reference to the colours–or lack thereof–found in soccer balls and referee jerseys."
2. Craig, Sheri (June–July 2008). "Putting the community into the centre". Building. Vol. 58, no. 3. pp. 20–23. ProQuest 229980346. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
  The article notes: "One example of the imaginative use of materials is Brampton, Ont.'s $26.5-million Soccer Centre, completed in May, 2007. The 152,000-sq.-ft. building includes four indoor soccer fields, bleachers, change facilities, a community wing and main lobby. It was designed to be easily converted to hockey and other indoor sports and is sized and scaled to operate with four independent programs running at the same time, including trade show events and other community activities."
3. Brampton Guardian articles:
  1. "Soccer at the centre of new state-of-the-art recreation facility". Brampton Guardian. 2007-06-24. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The article notes: "The new Brampton Soccer Centre offers more than just soccer but make no mistake-- soccer will be at the centre of it all. ... The new facility, at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway East, at the intersection of Sandalwood and Dixie Rd., will be a year-round home for local soccer groups. Four indoor field houses are expected to get plenty of use. Each field measures 85 by 200 with seating for about 350 spectators."
  2. Frisque, Graeme (2018-06-30). "What's Going on Here? Renovations underway to transform Brampton Soccer Centre into multi-sport facility". Brampton Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre was opened in 2007. The more than 120,000 square-metre property features four turfed field houses in a 14,200 square-metre indoor facility. The centre also currently features exterior fields and amenities including a splash pad. The city is looking to expand on the current soccer, dance and youth programming currently available at the site."
  3. Frisque, Graeme (2020-10-31). "Brampton Soccer Centre getting new name and sponsor". Brampton Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.
    The article notes: "The Brampton Soccer Centre won’t be called that for much longer. The complex located at 1495 Sandalwood Parkway E. will be renamed the Save Max Sports Centre after the City of Brampton signed sponsorship agreement for the exterior naming rights with Save Max Real Estate Inc. The deal, announced by the city in a release on Oct. 26, is for 15 years and $2,512,500."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Save Max Sports Centre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. However, the article should be renamed as Brampton Soccer Centre as we do not use sponsored names for soccer stadiums. Giant Snowman 11:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shown. Meets WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to sources found by Cunard, subject seems to meet WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources show this is just a run of the mill municipal sports complex. Fails WP:AUD of WP:NORG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in Canadian Architect, the journal of record of two national professional associations—the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) and the AIA Canada Society—meets WP:AUD.
  However, Save Max Sports Centre is not required to meet WP:AUD. Save Max Sports Centre is a building. The relevant guideline is WP:NBUILD, not WP:NORG (which WP:AUD is a part of). Cunard (talk) 09:46, 19 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. Star Mississippi 02:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Hazarika (singer)[edit]

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

Previously deleted at Rani Hazarika. She's sung a few more songs since then but I see no real new evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Assam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for pieces which are pretty obviously intended to be promotional, whether promoting her or the industry in general. I haven't found any honest neutral coverage, and that suggests GNG is not met. Basically the same concerns as the original discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found substantial coverage of the artist in reputable media outlets few of them are like ^[1] ^[2] and recent once ^[3], which I firmly believe meets the notability criteria. While some articles may seem promotional, it's common for media houses to highlight positives when interviewing artists and they most of the times don't keep the view point neutral. Let's discuss further to ensure a balanced perspective. Rainylights (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some of the projects she had helped to provide tracks stand on Wikipedia, I don't see her currently passing WP:GNG. All I find are just press releases that fail to provide any significant coverage of the subject.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respectfully disagree with the proposal to delete Rani Hazarika's article. While I understand the concerns raised about potential promotional content, I believe there are sufficient neutral sources to establish her notability. Hazarika's contributions to the music industry, including her involvement in various projects and collaborations, have been documented in reputable sources beyond mere press releases. Moreover, her continued activity in the field since the previous deletion discussion indicates ongoing relevance. Therefore, I argue that the article should be kept, as it meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion.Rainylights (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a useless platitude that misunderstands the reason for deletion entirely and appears to be AI-generated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Pppery,

In addition to your baseless accusations, I'd like to highlight that I can see, two articles published—one in the Times of India ^[4]and another in Nework KNT ^[5] —both praising the artist in question. It's worth noting that I have no affiliation with either publication. These articles further affirm the importance of the artist's work, casting doubt on the deletion of the Wikipedia article. I await a thoughtful response.

Previously, you placed a Speedy deletion tag on the article, which was later declined by the checker User/Administrator User:Ivanvector, citing legitimate reasoning G4: not substantially identical (CSDH).

Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water Rainylights (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More AI-generated nonsense. The Times of India is useless for establishing notability. The Network KNT source, is, despite heaping praise on the subject, not actually WP:SIGCOV and I'm not convinced it's a reliable source either. Now, resorting to an AFD is like digging a well in the desert while knowing there is no water -> huh? I'm not following your analogy at all. The only thing that could mean is that I somehow knew this AfD was doomed to fail and was disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and if you're really accusing me of that you need much stronger evidence for it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While doing preliminary research, the articles and links that show up in google, even though most are press releases about different song releases and events she has been part of, but the articles happen to be published by some of the largest Newspapers and Portals in the country, like Times of India^[6],^[7], ANI ^[8], Hindustan Times ^[9], Financial Express ^[10], Deccan Chronicle ^[11] and India Today, The Print, IBTimes ^[12] among others, some mentioning her as a sensation and others speaking in similar words, while a number of portals carry her interviews and achievements and contributions, suggesting she is very well known. Hope the attached links help in arriving at better clarity about the decision. Hjeelani (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a very quick glance, you have cites to The Times of India, which is useless for establishing notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closer look. Cites 1, 2, and 4 are useless as explained above. Cite 5 is not significant coverage, and cite 7 is reporting on a non-notable award mill, therefore also useless. Given the lack of any byline and such I'm not convinced cite 6 is a reliable source. For Cite 3 see WP:RSPANI - it's not a reliable source. Also keep in mind Paid news in India when trying to establish the notability of India-related topics. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(These comments are based on the numbering as of when I originally posted the comment, further discussion above has shifted the reference numbers slightly) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may check her new song 'Wallah Habibi Arabic" from current Bollywood Movie "Bade Miyan Chote Miyan" ^[13] Rainylights (talk) 03:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? That's just more puff from The Times of India and of no value in establishing notability at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass GNG with SIGCOV or NMUSIC or NARTIST. Most cites used are TOI that are not reliable for BLP and no notability outside one song. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's Notable singer , It's worth noting that having 100 articles about an artist isn't necessarily the only measure of their significance. Reviewing the tabulation in the article with all sources might provide a clearer picture of her level of notability to you.

Additionally, her impact extends beyond just one song and encompasses multiple works, as evidenced not only by coverage in TOI but also in numerous other reputable portals.Its not just a one song but, multiple and its not just TOI but, many other articles from reputed portals and she does pass GNG with SIGCOV . Rainylights (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. May not be amongst top singers but notable one. This, this, this, this and this covers the needful for WP:GNG per WP:THREE. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more good coverage by The Asian Age found here. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are: a repeat from above, not significant coverage, not significant coverage, unclear why this article without even a byline would be a reliable source, "partnered content" which I would assume means paid promotion of some sort especially given its tone. And the Asian Age source is probably just more paid news in India given the tone its written in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery sigh! You asked for WP:RS and I gave. The Asian Age is paid? Such a shame. If so, I must say, WP:RS is really debacle forever.

If this AfD results out here, then outcome should be same. Twinkle1990 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think a supposedly independent source would write things like As the name suggests Rani Hazarika is a voice with thousand attributes? And your AfD link is WP:OTHERSTUFF and not even a very convincing OTHERSTUFF, since I see no relationship at all between this AfD and that one other than that both are about musicians. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus.

Next to it, Times of India is not non-reliable but "reliability matter on the contributor of the topic.", which means notable jpu8rnalist's writing in Times of India are always reliable. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Asian Age is WP:RS per consensus. -> per consensus where? It's not on WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG where I would expect such a source to be documented.
The issue with The Times of India isn't reliability per se, it's that it is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage, which makes it completely useless for establishing notability as all having an article in The Times of India proves is that you paid them, not an assessment of independent worth. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject seems to be notable. Maybe I guess some works needs to be done on the article but I don't think deleting is a good option.--Meligirl5 (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, does the subject seem to be notable? Do you have any refutation to my analysis of any of the sources above? If you don't substantiate your opposition to deletion it will be completely ignored by the closing admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From some of the newspaper seen. She seems to be notable but I can't say if the article needs to be keep because her case looks confusing to me. That is why I said the article needs to be improved and maybe if not deleted can be sent back to draft and has to pass through the WP:AFCREVIEW.--Meligirl5 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is she notable in a way that meets Wikipedia criteria? That does not appear to be the case, although I can see why she is known in certain circles. Vacosea (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable as of now TheChronikler7 (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your Verdict feels like a final judgement from the supreme court judge. made without considering the arguments presented by the advocates or the significance of artist involved. Rainylights (talk) 13:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrational! !vote. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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) Shadow311 (talk) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viveka Adelswärd[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. The attempted notability claim here is a language conservation award, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass WP:GNG, but the article as written is completely unsourced.
As I can't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Swedish can find enough sourcing to salvage it, but she isn't exempted from having to have any sourcing just because the article has the word "award" in it. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Sweden. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Language. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article has been dragged up to the bare minimum, source-wise, and I'm convinced there's more which could be done. I found a couple of longer newspaper sources in the Swedish newspaper database sv:Mediearkivet, which collects a lot of newspaper articles from the last 10–15 years (and some older ones, but coverage gets sketchy). She was one of the hosts of Sommar (radio program) in the early 90s, which is considered quite a big thing. There's a lot of trivial coverage from back then, but at least one article in Aftonbladet from 2 August 1992 which seems promising – the Royal Library of Sweden has a lot of scanned newspaper articles where you can only see very short snippets, but where you need to get to the library or to one of a small number of university computers with access. More work to do, but I think it can be kept with the current amount of sourcing. /Julle (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as there also is a festschrift for her 60th birthday, satisfying WP:PROF criteria 1c. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 09:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:PROF. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Festschrift honoring her work is independent coverage of notability unless demonstratably tainted, which I cannot find evidence of here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Replayful and Mscuthbert. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP as Google Books search yields enough coverage for WP:BLP. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extensively quoted as an expert in Swedish litterature on communication, per GNG. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Julle. Southati (talk) 14:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Julle and Twinkle1990 -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:56, 17 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!} 23:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Panjgur landmine blast[edit]

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

All the sources provided are from July 2017. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 12 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) 14:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No long standing coverage, seems unlikely to have future press attention even in Pakistan. No group claimed responsibility for it so its status as terrorism is uncertain so I am uncertain of a merge to the general terror by year lists, though some the sources do call it terrorism - despite saying no group claimed it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:48, 12 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 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Ibarra[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Broc (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Chile, and Peru. Broc (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. A google news search comes up with 1 relevant hit, and that's a 1 line mention. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 15 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!} 23:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kooi-Ying Mah[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep or delete but want to comment that it is irrelevant if a modern day Australian is not in Trove. Trove is not the only place to look especially if the person is fairly young. Trove newspapers and magazines are generally "digitised up to 1954, with select newspapers and gazettes contributed up to present day (rights and funding permitting)." As an example, a better place to look would be in recent Australian architectural journals through EBSCO or JSTOR.LPascal (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She gets no hits in Jstor. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked JSTOR and from the list I could find, it does not index Australian architectural journals (except for Australian landscape architecture) and the architectural journals it does index are usually UK or US and limited to pre 2020). So I'm just pointing out that when you search for a younger, living Australian in databases to see if they have been written about, you have to understand that some databases mostly include non-Australian reference sources and may be limited in their date coverage, so that you can't assume that a person is non-notable because they don't appear in certain databases of reference sources. If you can find a better list of journals on JSTOR, I'd welcome receiving the link because it's difficult to find.LPascal (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more participation. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing popped up on TWL or google. Mach61 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. No new sources or arguments against the nomination were presented. Svartner (talk) 05:13, 15 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 14:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Jacobs[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Some hits online due to prolific local history writing, and being involved in various local events and organisations. None of it notable though, and no significant coverage for this individual. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe go back and work on the article because for now not enough here. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:22, 17 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) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roboquest[edit]

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

Unfortunately fails WP:GNG. Lack of notability indicated by no WP:VG/S review sources, either in the article or doing a WP:BEFORE, which only yielded mention in one WP:OFFLINE source from the Dutch magazine Gameplay. Reviews for two situational sources: TechRaptor and Gaming Age, although source discussions for neither seem particularly positive and both authors, whilst having a few reviews under their belt, have no experience or presence outside writing for their respective websites. Absent more reliable sources being found, seems like coverage is mostly confined to primary sources, non-reliable indie blogs and game guide type articles. Mindful this is a little closer to borderline than usual so welcome thoughts. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Honestly, expected to !vote the other way before digging in here. I did find an in-depth preview article at Jeux Video ([7]), a reliable French video game website which is listed on WP:VG/RS, along with a completely random but seemingly WP:RS review from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ([8]). These articles combined with the TechRaptor and Gaming Age hits put it over the edge into keep category for me. Nomader (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONENG comes through! I'll keep open for a second opinion but that's looking better. Shame about the WP:NEXIST on Gameplay but good find on the Arkansas paper, for whatever use it is, it is obviously significant coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JV, Gameplay, the Inven source from the article, and the smattering of other publications. I guess the English-language publications just missed this one, considering the breadth of other coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdraw on the basis that the found sources have since illustrated that notability has been comfortably met, supported by participants, making the need for a discussion moot. thanks to @Nomader:. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:20, 14 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) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in South Asia[edit]

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

Bad content fork Users123users (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article clearly meets WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Asia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 11:56, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment content fork of what exactly? Is there an alternative to deletion? Mccapra (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is copyedit from not more than dozen articles on wikipedia. Also there are excerpts like controversy heading at the bottom of the page. See Islam in South Asia article edit history Users123users (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by copyedit? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the lead first paragraph and demographics everything was copied from other articles and added to the article. See edit history Users123users (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article falls under WP:GOODFORK, as I don't see any article covering the same topic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 12:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islam In South Asia five years ago, "South Asia is a region where there are hundreds of millions of Muslims, and where Islam has had a significant presence for hundreds of years before the modern nation-states in the area were created. The topic is significant and notable enough to justify an article." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP as clearly passes WP:GNG alongside several books found on this topic in Google Book Search. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:06, 16 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World of Watches characters[edit]

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

Zero references, written completely in-universe, no indication of notability. Hard to look up any sources, as most results of "world of watches" concern the timepiece, but even a search with author name Lukyanenko bring up very little. Suitable for a dedicated fansite or Fandom wiki. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Film, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:BEFORE didn't reveal enough for WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:56, 14 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. If desired, anyone may create a redirect as an ordinary editing decision. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Laurence Fox GB News scandal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Relatively minor controversy that did not have much of a lasting impact. Furthermore, it is already covered in the GB News article. Partofthemachine (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GB News#Other investigations per nom Nate • (chatter) 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Events, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary fork from GB News and Laurence Fox. A redirect is unnecessary as this is an unlikely search term. AusLondonder (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with above comments. There is nothing here that can't be covered in the GB News and Laurence Fox articles. ResonantDis_tortion 22:02, 13 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 radio stations in U.S. territories#Guam. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHMG[edit]

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

Very little content. Zero secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. territories#Guam: I can't imagine this is anything more than a run-of-the-mill religious station, and I'd be surprised if any significant coverage exists here to allow for anything more than a glorified directory entry. An ((R to list entry)) as an alternative to deletion is probably more than enough. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in U.S. territories was what I suggested in my deprod. AusLondonder believes deletion is preferred for this and a bunch of similar cases they're working through. I've brought this up but I haven't heard a good explanation for this preference. ~Kvng (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you thought a redirect appropriate you were certainly welcome to do so. That's really up to you. I have explained my own view on my talkpage. KHMG could just as easily refer to this New Zealand real estate company which is about just as notable as this station. It could also be referring to this medical centre in California. As I pointed out some of these articles have been deleted, some redirected. I'm also concerned that the state-by-state lists are largely or completely unsourced, unverifiable and out of date. AusLondonder (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone think if I had WP:BLARED KHMG as part of my deprod it would be WP:LIKELY to be deleted at WP:MFD if someone nominated it? I don't think it would be but I can't remember having any of my WP:BLARS at WP:MFD and I don't have a lot of WP:MFD experience so I really don't know.

When I have time, I do often WP:BLAR topics categories have experience with like non-notable songs to their album, non-notable books to their author, etc. With the 7-day prod timer ticking, I don't always have time to do those extra steps and this radio station issue is fairly new to me. ~Kvng (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This much is for certain: MfD would be the wrong venue in that scenario; redirects are discussed at the separate RfD process. Even there, though, it appears to be relatively common (though not necessarily a fait accompli, depending on the exact circumstances) that an RfD would result in a reversion to the article as a contested BLAR, which may either be accompanied by a suggestion to send it to AfD or even a more-immediate procedural AfD, so it is not out of the question that we'd end up here anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot that RfD was separate from MfD. I'm just trying to determine if there is a good justification for deleting this as opposed to redirecting. AusLondonder argues that KHMG is ambiguous so that's one potential reason. If that's enough reason to delete a redirect at RfD than we might as well delete it here and now. My impression is that WP:CHEAP usually prevails at RfD but I don't have enough experience in redirect deletion discussions to know what counterarguments do prevail. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 13 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 12:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeseha Wuraola Becky[edit]

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

An article about a Nigerian actress, filmmaker, Philanthropist and a business woman that doesn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:NACTOR. The actress has appeared in non notable films and has neither lead any role or praised for that role in any film per WP:BEFORE. Gross case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: the sources seems to bear interview natures like "she said", "I did abortion", etc and doesn't mean WP:SIGCOV. Sideway drive of promotional clauses ! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP SIGCOV and NACTOR --BoraVoro (talk) 14:43, 17 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 2013. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013 Karachi bombing[edit]

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

2 sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 12 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) 10:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. As per the 20 other discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. This was how similar issues were handled recently: [9], [10], [11]. ~Kvng (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid–Manchester City rivalry[edit]

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

The existence of this article is a testament to recency bias that has been prevalent on Wikipedia. The simple fact that Real Madrid and Manchester City are currently among the strongest teams in Europe that compete for trophies against each other does not make them rivals. It is a disgrace that this copy-pasted article with zero reliable sources was even approved in the first place. Monerals (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a rivalry significant enough to merit an article. IMHO there's no way that a significant rivalry can exist between teams that have only ever met 12 times (arguably six times, as it was 6 x two-legged ties). The article says "The rivalry is marked by intense matches, filled with talent, innovative tactics, and memorable moments that have captured the imagination of fans worldwide." - you could probably say the same about literally any combination of two leading teams from the leading leagues in Europe, but we don't need a full-blown article on the "rivalry" between every possible combination of such teams...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again this is just a head to head with statistical information and WP:WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT clearly applies along with WP:NOSTATS. Regards. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely different case from Arsenal F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry, which are teams from the same league, with more than 200 matches between them. This artcile only includes clashes in recent editions of the UEFA Champions League. Svartner (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete teams that have played 12 times ever, and that isn't enough to form an actual rivalry. Nonsense recentism bias. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - : How about we rename this page as head to head between Real Madrid and Manchester City ? As it is not a significant rivalry or even a rivalry in the first place. Nithin.john2006 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i intend to delete my response. there are better sources for head - to - head now that i see Nithin.john2006 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an article listing every match two teams played against each other, that content is irrelevant and violates WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 18 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halifax Community College[edit]

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

This college notability appears to be questionable, as many of the sources cited do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:RS. Additionally, an education institute does not inherently meet the Notability unless it meets WP:GNG, which it does not. It was created by User: Faizanalivarya, known for COI editing. The editing history by User: Faizanalivarya (see this) to add unsourced promotional content about a relatively unknown small college in the US, and then these comments on the talk page suggesting the possibility of paid editing. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and United States of America. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a legitimate, accredited college. It's a small community college in a rural location, however, so it doesn't seem to have gotten much press but there is a little bit if you really dig e.g., [12], [13], [14], [15],[16], [17]. And of course there are the standard information sources for accredited institutions in the U.S. such as IPEDS, USN&WR, and its Carnegie classifications. ElKevbo (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to some GNG-passing sources above, others may include [18] [19] [20] [21] Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Community colleges in North America are almost alway notable, and WP:BEFORE should be used. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited by ElKevbo and Hameltion. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:22, 17 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!} 07:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nodus Domini[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The game is mentioned in passing in 3 of 5 sources and the other 2 are database entries. No added content since its creation in 2021. Humsorgan (talk) 07:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Czech Republic. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete – Video games that were canceled before release are not notable, thus do not deserve their article. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Ootes[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources about the player (just passing mentions), just clubs and tournament organisers. Nothing useful on Google News. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. Fram (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep player has participated in notable events (Tata Steel Chess Tournament), accomplished notable feats (wins against higher-rated players), and has independent reliable sources (theweekinchess) GeorgeMHall (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The definition of notability is about the same for chess players as for other topics. Participation in a notable event is not itself notable. Games won against stronger players, even against notable players, are not inherently notable. Appearance in TWIC is not the kind of coverage that defines notability; everybody and his brother-in-law has appeared in TWIC. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have significant coverage - all I see is routine tournament results and databases of his games. If there is a trove of offline or Dutch language sources out there then great, but we need to see some evidence of that in order to keep the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:12, 14 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!} 22:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspose.Words[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT as it lacks any secondary, significant coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It Note :Good article, but it has some errors،GQO (talk) 8:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should probably have been blown to bits for WP:BROCHURE alone even if there were sources, but sources there aren't. Barely any mentions outside their own website at all, and those mentions it does have are not anywhere near close to meeting WP:NPRODUCT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:05, 13 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SciTech (magazine)[edit]

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

Not seeing this pass WP:NCORP Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Even though I find the lack of recent coverage concerning, I think the late 1990s-early 2000s coverage is enough to probably pass WP:NWEB. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Websites, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:16, 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!} 06:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY, and move to SciTechDaily. Although its URL has always been scitechdaily.com, the site was originally called Sci Tech Daily Review; it is currently called SciTechDaily (one word) but the name appears variously as SciTech Daily or Sci Tech Daily, making the search for coverage trickier than it may seem at first. Coverage establishing notability include the 1999 review in The Independent which rated Sci Tech Daily as "the best science news site" at the time – better than Science Daily, The New Scientist and Scientific American, "if you [could] accept its perfunctory design". More recently, there was an in-depth review in CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries in 2015, which briefly covers the history of SciTechDaily; describes its format; and analyzes its content in comparison with Science Daily, noting that "SciTechDaily appears to edit sources more heavily for readability and publishes fewer articles overall and so may be preferred by those who find ScienceDaily overwhelming". The fact that it was nominated for a Webby led to a 2002 article in USA Today, about how the founder and her business partner set off 1,000 rockets in New Zealand to celebrate. There are many other reviews and articles recommending scitechdaily.com in newspapers such as The Courier Mail in Brisbane (2002) and The New York Times (1998) and again in 2000; industry trade publications such as Design News (2000); and academic journal articles such as The Lancet in 2000. These and other links have been added to the expanded article now. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this SciTechDaily is a popular science website, the most relevant notability criteria is WP:WEBSITE rather than WP:NCORP. The sources listed above demonstrate that the website fulfills WP:WEBCRIT #1 and #2 (short list for Webby award). @Hemiauchenia: Request reconsideration of expanded article in light of the above. I have also added one more article from New Zealand Herald since yesterday about SciTechDaily following the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it clearly meets general notability. Schwede 66 17:07, 15 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!} 21:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Thread[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the nominator for spamming, but I believe this nomination should be considered on its merits. MER-C 14:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The current sources are the company's own about page, a local news site and a press release. I've looked and have not found anything better. Does not meet and is unlikely to meet WP:CORP. Jtrrs0 (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Like I stated, Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability. Kinopiko ^talk 10:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NCORP as coverage is limited to local announcements of the store opening and closing locations at malls. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:02, 12 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!} 21:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European identity[edit]

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

Similar to the Northwestern European people and Eastern European people articles that have also been deleted, this similarly written article has the same problems. Lots of WP:REFBOMBED issues where the article just references random articles with the phrase "Eastern European" in it. Also WP:SYNTH. (This is almost verbatim the rationale of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people, and it also applies here). NLeeuw (talk) 05:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Europe. NLeeuw (talk) 05:47, 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!} 05:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @SunDawn, Hemiauchenia, Mzajac, and Bearian: for your consideration because you participated in the 2021 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern European people written by the same user. This AfD is a follow-up. NLeeuw (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing evidence that "Eastern European Identity" exists as a coherent topic that an article could be written about. As the nom says, this appears to be refbombed with used of similar phrasing , but doesn't really demonstrate that this concept exists. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. This is essentially a review synthesizing material and citations, bordering on original research. Sometimes we ignore the rules and let such articles slide - I've been guilty of that - but based on past outcomes, I'm going for deletion. This compares unfavorably to such topics as Pan-Slavism, which is a thing and could be a good article. I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 12 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 Franz Kafka. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriele Kafka[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Being the sister of someone notable does not make her notable. She has achieved nothing in life. FromCzech (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FromCzech (talk) 04:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've gone through the articles on de.wiki and cs.wiki, did a little other searching, probably meets WP:BASIC. Kafka's life is so heavily covered, and she is covered in most of his biographies. I don't think the fact she never achieved anything herself really is relevant to whether or not she's notable enough for inclusion. Valereee (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see notability either. "Sister of a famous person who died in a concentration camp" is a bit of a stretch for notability here. I could see this being covered in a memorial site; I'm not even sure what she would be notable for in order to have a wikipedia article. She went to school, got married and was close to her children. Maybe gets a mention in the Kafka article's biography section, but that's about all. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Franz Kafka, if any information is deemed encyclopedic enough. Otherwise redirect. Jdcooper (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I think Valereee has put her finger on it. Notability is not dependent on "achievements" but on sources, ~~and GK has adequate sourcing as a result of the huge literature of Kafka.~~. Ingratis (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
change to Merge/Redirect, with reluctance - I haven't been able to find anything on her at all independently of Kafka, so although it remains correct that notability is not achievement-based but source-based, in this instance there apparently just aren't the sources. Nevertheless she is a plausible search term, so WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable outside of being someone's relative Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Franz Kafka. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:05, 12 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. No consensus for a particular outcome has transpired at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Louis Boetzel[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. i can´t find substantive coverage in independent sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG and AUTHOR. Significant coverage in Google Books (including its newspaper archive eg [22] etc), Google Scholar, the Internet Archive, in newspapers such as the New York Times, and elsewhere. Eric Boetzel was joint author of The Light in the Sky (1929) [23], which has multiple periodical book reviews in The New York Evening Post (Edwin Seaver, 15 June 1929, p 6m), The New York Herald Tribune (Books, 30 June 1929, p 14), The New York Times (9 June 1929, p 9), New York Times Book Review ("Fantastic Romance", 9 June 1929, p 9) [24], The Ohio State Engineer [25] [26], Amazing Stories [27], London Review of Books [28], Futures Past [29], Music Lovers' Phonograph Monthly Review [30], Music Trade Indicator [31], Book Review Digest [32], and elsewhere [33], and is the subject of articles in numerous annotated bibliographies. Reprinted by Arno Press in 1978 (which implies it is enduringly popular). First novel with a theme song according to Music Trade Indicator (which I assume refers to the vinyl music record that was released to accompany the book). James500 (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All references mentioned above are about the book The Light in the Sky and most are not in-depth, independent reviews. There is no substantive coverage about the person, the co-author Mr. Boetzel. All biographical facts in the article are based on one primary source and one passing mention in the New York Times article. I stick to my opinion that the subject does not pass Wikipedia:Notability nor Wikipedia:Author. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He very clearly does pass AUTHOR. It is no good claiming that the coverage is of the book, because the whole point of AUTHOR is that authors are notable for their books, and that coverage of the book is coverage of the author. As far as I can see, the sources are in-depth independent reviews. "Substantive coverage about the person" is not required by criteria 3 or 4 of AUTHOR, however some of the reviews do contain substantive coverage of aspects of Boetzel's biography other than the book (and notice that the book is part of his biography and not something separate). The source of the "biographical facts in the article" is irrelevant, because notability does not have anything to do with article content: WP:CONTN. The bottom line is that Boetzel has created and played a major role in creating a significant and well-known work, which has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles and reviews; and his work has won significant critical attention. On the face if it, he very clearly satisfies WP:AUTHOR. And there is coverage of other aspects of his biography in various sources. We have far more coverage, and we know far more, (not all of which is in the article or this discussion yet), about the "non-literary" aspects of Boetzel's life than we do about Homer's. If we were to delete Boetzel's article on that technicality, we would have to delete Homer next, because we know nothing about Homer apart from the contents of two books. James500 (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see any coverage of this person in the LOC newspaper database, Gnews, Scholar or Jstor. Was a bit skeptical about author notability; the only one I can open is the London Review of Books, it's barely a paragraph long. The rest are geo-blocked from my location; I might attempt some *ahem* high-seas, arrrrrr, methods later at home, see if I can get around that limitation. !delete for now. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your inability to read printed sources for free online is not a grounds for deletion. Neither is claiming that you are unable to read them, when you are in fact perfectly able to read them in snippet view in Google Books, or (in some cases, such as Amazing Stories [34] and the Music Lovers' Phonograph Monthly Review [35]) in full page preview in the Internet Archive, or from the University archive linked to above. Neither is selectively cherrypicking the databases that contain the least coverage, when I specifically said Google Books and the Internet Archive. Neither is claiming that the Chronicling America database has no coverage when in fact it clearly does have coverage, including numerous entire newspaper articles about Boetzel [36] [37] [38] [39] etc. Especially when they come up immediately on a search for "Boetzel" in New York [40] or Eric Boetzel generally. Neither is claiming that Chronicling America has complete coverage of the relevant newspaper book reviews from 1929, when it obviously does not have those newspapers (New York Times, Evening Post and Herald Tribune) for that year (unless there is something seriously wrong with its OCR). Especially when the Book Review Digest, which you can read in Google Books, clearly confirms that the three newspaper reviews exist, and even tells you how many words long they are. James500 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed I said I would review them from my personal computer at home, which I'm about to do now. Please stop with the personal attacks and read carefully; I have to use pirated sources to read many of them, which I'd not encourage others to do. I have ways to bypass copyright locks on many of these sources, but these are not legal. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Oaktree b: First, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not accusing you of anything. Secondly, I would be very grateful (and I mean that sincerely) if you would tell me if you can you read this snippet, this snippet and this snippet? On the face of it, this technique is perfectly legal because Google won the court case over snippet view. Between them, those three snippets should display the whole of the article in the Book Review Digest. James500 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to react with hostility to editors who hold a different point of view than your own. You are apparently willing to go to great lengths to find sources (as I've seen in other AFDs) but we rely on a volunteer crew here and we are especially in need of thoughtful participants in AFDs as we are getting fewer and fewer editors willing to take time to do the research. I'm grateful for our regular participants like Oaktree b whose search for sources differed from your own. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz: I did not express any hostility towards anyone or anything. I did not comment on anyone's point of view. I commented on the existence of sources, whether it was possible to read those sources online, and the factual accuracy of statements. I am sorry if what I said was capable of being misunderstood. James500 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first Ohio State Engineer link is the only one I can access, it's rather extensive. I can't open any of the other sources. The London Review of Books is a small paragraph, hardly extensive. I can't find enough sources to meet author notability. I can't find mention of his activities as a lawyer in a NY State newspaper archive [41], so still no help there. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Looks like No consensus right now. Hoping for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think. To the sources about the novel, I can add The Brooklyn Daily Eagle ([42]), Akron Beacon ([43]) - lots more like this on newspapers.com, so many that I stopped opening anything from 1929 (sorry @ anyone who can't load these proxy links, I don't know of any other way to share these). His divorce was messy enough to make it to the papers ("Writer's Wife Sues to Make Long Story Short" [44], [45]). Actually, someone else's divorcee was messy enough that he made it to the papers for that, too ([46]). He apparently went to jail for several months for mail fraud ([47]), and was disbarred for it ([48]). He appears to have enjoyed writing indignant letters to the editor in his old age. Also, he wrote this bizarre one to the Korean ambassador ([49]). (?!?!) This is all to say, our article is underselling how weird this guy's life was, and he definitely meets WP:GNG. -- asilvering (talk) 23:24, 18 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 Draftify‎ as there is an active desire to address the WP:V issues. Draftifying as this as there does not appear to be a consensus on the best title. For the move to whichever title it eventually lands at, feel free to ping me if that requires admin action but should be fine editorially. Star Mississippi 02:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. There's nothing in the one on line source given that confirms that this even exists and I could not find anything in a search. I looked several places on the history of Dalmatia and none of the mentions it. Creator appears to not be present in Wikipedia. Either way not much to lose, the contents of this stub pretty much is already at a table at List of wars involving Bosnia and Herzegovina which I put a CN tag on. North8000 (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there's been a few of these kinds of 'war' articles created with very little documentation... I searched online for rat bosna ugarska 1387 -wiki, and found no clear reference to a war, but rather e.g. this 2011 paper which uses the terms sukob (conflict) but not these specific years, and describes the context of Sigismund pretensions to Bosnian crown, with all the various noblemen in a nuanced set of relationships, and different historians characterizing these differently. WP:TNT probably applies here. --Joy (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lead of the GA Tvrtko I of Bosnia says After bitter fighting, from 1385 to 1390, Tvrtko succeeded in conquering large parts of Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper. The article has much more. As of now, the one line stub is inferior to the Trvtko I article, but you cannot generally treat conflicts in an article devoted to one side. So I think the article should probably stay. Srnec (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that you mention it, 1385 and 1387 are clearly different, so there's a significant problem here from the get-go; in turn, when looking for mentions of 1385 in that reportedly good article, I found little to corroborate that part of the lead, no mention of a war with Hungary other than a 1363 one, yet also a random WP:EGG link to an unrelated battle that year. --Joy (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec: What do you think about the title? I don't know much about 1300's geography but I do know Hungary existed then. Is "Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia proper" Hungarian? North8000 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the problem is that the main opponent related to the Kingdom of Hungary that Tvrtko seems to had encountered were the Dalmatian city-states. These were not terribly well integrated with their hinterland and had habitually shifted allegiances between the Eastern Roman Empire, Hungary, and Venice at the time. So it seems like it's not like there was a coherent army of Hungary and battles between them and the Bosnian army, which is what the average reader will expect from an article about a medieval war. At least we don't have this documented properly, that is. --Joy (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure the events have necessarily been so clearly defined elsewhere. The timeline of this source on page xxix lumps these events into a period of military conflicts between 1385-1390 for example. Dubrovnik: A History essentially places the events as occurring during an on-going civil war in Hungary (of which we currently have no article, and that Tvrtko was simply able to use the chaotic events to break away from Hungarian control.) Placed in that light, the events might be better covered on a broader picture of that civil war. This detailed account doesn't use such clearly defined terms, and looks at the events as spanning across a longer time frame (extending back to military conflict in 1384); although I am uncertain about the reliability of the publisher. This source, like many, discuss the events in context to the Battle of Kosovo. This older source refers to the wars of 1385 and 1390; showing a separation [50]. Clearly the events being discussed here should be covered in some fashion. I don't think the article as titled matches the historicity of the published literature on those events across a wider range of sources.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is highly productive, but I don't think I can find consensus here. It seems the (verified) content should be merged, perhaps?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as essentially WP:OR. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. I would consider these events part of a bigger Hungarian Civil War as described in Dubrovnik: A History (see my comment above for ref url) which began after the death of Louis I of Hungary in 1382. Essentially his death created a power vacuum as he had no male heir which led to a great deal of political instability and bloody series of military offenses involving multiple political opponents that included several different factions across the Kingdom of Hungary. Chief among these were Mary, Queen of Hungary, Sigismund of Luxembourg, Charles III of Naples, and Tvrtko I of Bosnia. When these events began Bosnia didn't even exist, and when Tvrtko became King in 1387 it was a result of this wider civil war, and Tvrtko's success of asserting independence during that war. The succeeding military campaigns in Dalmatia were a continuation of the rebellion that created the Kingdom of Bosnia, and, according to Dubrovnik: A History, these military events led by Tvrtko were done so under the support of Charles III of Naples (and after his death Ladislaus of Naples) who benefited from them in his power stuggle against Sigismund of Luxembourg and Mary, Queen of Hungary. In other words, it's all tied up together into a bigger power conflict in a Hungarian Civil War over Hungarian succession due to opposition to a woman sitting on the throne. Some of this is covered in Kingdom of Hungary (1301–1526)#New consolidation (1382–1437). We really could use an article on the broader civil war in Hungary of which the creation of Bosnia and the succeeding military incursions into Dubrovnik are a part. That is where this content belongs.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what are the possible WP:ATD? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the best option. The title itself is OR and should not remain as even a REDIRECT because there is no such thing as the "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". We could draftify it under a new title about the Hungarian Civil War of that era; although it would be hard to define an exact end to that event. Charles III of Naples became king but was then assassinated by agents of Mary, Queen of Hungary. Ladislaus of Naples then got involved in events. Mary was in a tenuous spot until she married Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Probably their marriage would be the definitive end to the conflict because it filled the power vacuum, although one could argue the war ended when Mary was restored to power after Charles III was killed. However, the Court of Naples and Tvrtko continued to test and instigate conflict even after they married... so... The sources would obviously determine the scope. It would require research and time to determine that, hence why starting an article in draft space under a new title would be the only possible ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense to cover this as a section in a broader article about the crisis in the Kingdom of Hungary at the time. This reminds me a bit of Candian War#War in Dalmatia, where we have a secondary theatre of operations of a large war, which is perfectly notable in its own right, covered by reliable sources and actually had a long-term impact on those regions, but is covered only in the larger context right now. --Joy (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably makes sense to collect information for this new article not only from here, but from our other articles, we have a lot of this scattered in the articles about Mary, Charles, Elizabeth, Tvrtko, Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić, Nikola Gorjanski, John of Palisna, etc. --Joy (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy What do you think we should title this? Dubrovnik: A History refers to these events in a chapter subheading as the "Hungarian Civil War". I think that is a reasonable title but it will need a disambiguation page as there are already two articles that are at the dab page Hungarian Civil War. Perhaps Hungarian Civil War (began 1382)? As I said tacking on an ending date is hard here, because it really depends on the point of view of the historian.4meter4 (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ask the some of the editors who contributed to Hungarian history articles, like @Borsoka or @Norden1990 --Joy (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose deletion and I strongly oppose a merger. The existing article can be expanded and re-titled if its scope broadens. Calling it a definable and isolated "war" is a stretch. This is reading too much into the title. Wars often contain smaller wars, so the fact that these military actions were not isolated doesn't matter. Just look at the contemporary Hundred Years' War and its sub-wars. an article on the broader civil war in Hungary ... is where this content belongs. So the content belongs at an article that doesn't exist. This is a reason to keep this article and work on it. The title itself is OR. Not necessarily a problem per WP:NDESC, although "war" should not be upper case. Srnec (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec There are no sources (zero, including the ones you are using), that use the title "Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)". Your article is blatant WP:Original synthesis. If you want to write like that, submit an article to a history journal. Wikipedia doesn't accept original historical analysis.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My article? I've never edited the article in question. Srnec (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This conflict is related to the civil war in Hungary following the death of Louis I (1382). Sigismund fought against the rebellious Horvat family and John of Palisna, former supporters of Charles III of Naples. After Sigismund drove them out from Syrmia, they fled to Bosnia, where their cause was supported by Tvrtko. Their rebellion lasted until 1394. Some sources (in Hungarian): [51], [52], [53], [54], Mályusz Elemér: Zsigmond király uralma Magyarországon 1387–1437, Gondolat, Budapest, 1984. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Norden1990 Is the creation of the Kingdom of Bosnia not considered part of the civil war then? 1384 seems to be a strange cut off point. That's before the ascension of Charles III of Naples in 1385 and the creation of Bosnia in 1387, events which would seem to be critical to the power struggle of that civil war. (wasn't Bosnia's assertion of its own kingdom, and breaking off from the Kingdom of Hungary by definition a secession achieved through civil war?) Dubrovnik: A History seems to claim as much because it lumps the incursions by Tvrtko into Dubrovnik in 1387 under the Hungarian Civil War subsection. This is what I meant by an unclear cut off point in the civil war's timeline. It really depends on the historian. If we are going to write an article on the Hungarian Civil War (1382-1384) that doesn't leave room for the contents of this article unless we place it in some sort of aftermath subsection of that civil war page. All of this to say, what do we call the article(s) and what is(are) their scope? Does this need to be a series of articles? Where do the events described here fall within the article/articles? These questions might be best addressed in draft space rather than at an AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4, I did not mention the date 1384, but 1394. In the latter year, the Horvat rebellion (see John Horvat and Paul Horvat, then partisans of Ladislaus of Naples) was finally crushed. So, this Hungarian civil war lasted from 1382 to 1394, but after 1387 it no longer took place in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. My mistake.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft at Draft:Hungarian Civil War (1382–1394) per input from Norden1990. No redirect should remain. I struck my earlier vote above. @ Norden1990 and Joy, do you two mind assisting with writing this draft? Srnec you are of course welcome to aid in writing the draft as well. I'll pitch in if nobody else is willing, but it's not my area of expertise. Many hands make light work. 4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or simply Horvat rebellion (Hungarian: Horváti-lázadás), frequent name of the conflict in Hungarian historiography. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not about the civil war, but about a military conflict within the civil war, so there is no reason to delete it. I am not sure that the title is fully in line with WP:NAME, but it is another issue and Hungarian Civil War would not be in line with our policies either. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to do somehing here is that it's an incoherent stub that oversimplifies things from the title onwards. If we're claiming that there was something named a "Bosnian-Hungarian war" and it's hard to identify what the Hungarian side here is because they're actually embroiled in a civil war at the same time, this is a disservice to our readers from the get-go. If we actually reference historians saying these events are named that way, that's fine - but as it is now, we're not doing that. --Joy (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current version is not up to the level of being an article. The single line of the article floats in the ether without any context. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is only a stub that can be expanded. Borsoka (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @ Joy, Norden1990, and North8000 what do you all think about the move to draft proposal? I'm the only one who has put in a formal vote for it, and if this were to close now it probably would close as no consensus or keep because there isn't clear support for any action at the moment, with a slight majority vote in keeping the article. This is largely because people are commenting without endorsing a particular action. Please WP:BEBOLD and come out with a clear opinion for the closing admin.4meter4 (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion; my nomination was just me trying to do my NPP job properly. But my opinion is delete. It looks like the title is defective, and the title defines the subject of the article, so we really don't even have a subject. And the content consists of two sentences. One sentence (which appears to be incorrect) which defines the putative topic and the other sentence is defining where a particular event is in the timeline of the non-exsistent subject. So there's really nothing to save. But I'm just offering a framework that might help sort this out....there are participants here that know this topic a zillion times better than I do and so their input is very important. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it does not reach stub level, at least. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:STUB: A stub is an article deemed too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. Seems like a stub to me. Srnec (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The single line mentions only one segment of the war, while there were also military operations in the territory of Bosnia and Slavonia, and all of this, additionally, is actually a secondary theater of a civil war situation in Hungary. It is as if there was no article about a battle, only about one phase of it, which was won by, say, B, while the outcome of the battle ended with A's victory. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is going into the weeds with talk of dates of rebellions and national borderlines when AFDs typically focus on issues of notability and sourcing that establishes that notability. Other issues over who did what to whom and why are content decisions that can be worked out if this article is Kept. But we need some definitive verdicts on what should happen. I have a bias towards ATD in discussions like this but if a consensus forms to delete, that's what will happen. ~~I guess I'm just surprised that the nominator doesn't have an opinion on this. Why did it come to AFD if you weren't seeking deletion?~~
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Liz I believe you made an error in your relist comment about what the nominator said. The nominator has been consistent in their desire to delete the article. The ambivalence expressed was about my move to draft proposal after I pinged them to comment on it. Additionally, the issue over facts is relevant because at the heart of the issue is WP:No Original Research. There are zero sources that use the term “ Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390)” and doing so here is presenting an original interpretation of historical events. We should cover these events because they are notable but not from a SYNTH framework of questionable historicity. In other words, the conversation hasn’t been derailed, it’s accurate at calling out OR. In case it isn’t clear my preference is to drafty under a new name per ATD. Failing that I say delete as OR. Keeping is not an option under policy because there are no sources discussing these events as titled and constructed here. Not a single source has been produced that uses the term Bosnian-Hungarian War (1387-1390).4meter4 (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should cover these events because they are notable is the relevant part for AFD. The title of the article can be changed without deletion. Srnec (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec This isn't a simple matter of renaming. These events aren't covered as isolated events in the academic literature'. They are covered as a small part of a larger war. That's why we need to draftify because as a stand alone event isolated in this way it isn't notable. As part of the notable Hungarian Civil War it can be covered.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, striking my unnecessary comment. Thanks for the check. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so that problems can be worked out before trying to make this an article. Vacosea (talk) 20:30, 20 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceutical Group[edit]

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

The information source in the article is unreliable .Because it does not meet the requirement of Wikipedia:Notability. It is recommended to delete it. Hhhlx (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hhhlx (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and China. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first two references are from sources like Xinhua and Reuters, and more can probably be found with a Google News search. There's no need to delete the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Innovation Ranking – Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceuticals Group Co Ltd". GlobalData. 2024-03-26. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The summary of the company on the page linking to the report notes: "Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceuticals Group Co Ltd (Kanghong Pharmaceuticals) focuses on the development, manufacturing and marketing of Chinese medicines, chemical drugs, and biological products. It offers products for the treatment of medical conditions related to the central nervous system, ophthalmology, digestive system, gastrointestinal, and diabetes among others. Kanghong Pharmaceutical products include Lumitin, Bosiqing, Bolexin, Danshu, Xinluona, Yiqing, Keluoxin, Yitanning, and Xuanmaiganju. The company offers its products in the form of dispersible tablets, ophthalmic injections, oral drugs, detoxification drugs, and antiviral medicines. Kanghong Pharmaceuticals is headquartered in Chengdu, Sichuan, China."
2. "利好"突变"利空康弘药业涉嫌信披违规" ["Sudden changes" are good but bad. Kanghong Pharmaceutical is suspected of disclosure violations]. Economic Information Daily (in Chinese). 2021-04-16. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "康弘药业（002773）的一款核心药品，三年来一直被公司释放“海外临床进展良好”的信号。然而，随着公司3月29日的一纸“自愿公告”，利好突然变为利空——先是法国临床试验“莫名其妙”被暂停，后是直接宣布临床试验停止。康弘药业到底是何时获得临床失败信息的？其公告所称“近日”具体指哪一日？康弘药业对这一重大消息的信披是否真实、准确、完整、及时？大量资金为何在消息公布前出逃？"
  From Google Translate: "A core drug of Kanghong Pharmaceutical (002773), the company has been releasing signals of "good overseas clinical progress" for three years. However, with the company's "voluntary announcement" on March 29, the good news suddenly turned bad - first, the French clinical trial was "inexplicably" suspended, and then the clinical trial was directly announced to be stopped. When did Kanghong Pharmaceutical obtain the clinical failure information? What specific day does the "recent days" mentioned in its announcement refer to? Is Kanghong Pharmaceutical's disclosure of this major news true, accurate, complete and timely? Why did a large amount of money flee before the news was announced?"
3. Zhao, Yan 赵妍 (2016-04-28). "康弘药业行贿冀文林曝光或结交多名周永康亲信" [Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceutical Group bribed Ji Wenlin to expose or made friends with many close associates of Zhou Yongkang] (in Chinese). NetEase. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "公开资料显示，康弘药业是一家致力于中成药、化学药及生物制品的研发、生产、销售的企业，总部位于四川成都。在资本市场上带有"国内自主研发药企"的耀眼头衔。 ... 上世纪九十年代，在华西医科大学附属第一医院药房当主任的柯尊洪离职，与3名同行共同创业。康弘药业是1998年通过整体收购全民所有制企业济民制药厂后，于2008年3月6日更名而成。"
  From Google Translate: "Public information shows that Kanghong Pharmaceutical is an enterprise dedicated to the research and development, production and sales of Chinese patent medicines, chemical drugs and biological products. It is headquartered in Chengdu, Sichuan. ... In the 1990s, Ke Zunhong, who was the director of the pharmacy of the First Affiliated Hospital of West China University of Medical Sciences, resigned and started a business with three colleagues. Kanghong Pharmaceutical was renamed on 6 March 2008 after the overall acquisition of Jimin Pharmaceutical Factory, an enterprise owned by the whole people in 1998."
4. Wang, Chenxi 王晨曦 (2001-04-28). "康弘药业"变脸"：专利官司缠身，康柏西普"出海"爆雷" [Kanghong Pharmaceutical's "change of face": Patent lawsuits are entangled, and Conbercept's "going overseas" makes a splash]. The Time Weekly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14.
  The article notes: "2018年5月，康弘药业启动了关于“一项多中心、双盲、随机、剂量范围试验，评估康柏西普眼注注射液治疗新生血管性年龄相关性黄斑变性患者的疗效和安全性”全球Ⅲ期临床试验项目(即KH916项目)，而且信心满满地跟阿柏西普(再生元和拜耳联合开发的VEGF单抗)进行头对头比较。2020年12月，康弘药业还曾计划定增募资34.72亿元，并将其中25.73亿元用于康柏西普的“出海”。然而，这个历时近3年的创新药“出海”项目最终宣告夭折，近14亿元的研发投入因此打了水漂。"
  From Google Translate: "In May 2018, Kanghong Pharmaceutical launched "a multi-center, double-blind, randomized, dose-ranging trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Conbercept Ophthalmic Injection in the treatment of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration" "Global Phase III clinical trial project (i.e. KH916 project), and confidently conduct a head-to-head comparison with aflibercept (a VEGF monoclonal antibody jointly developed by Regeneron and Bayer). In December 2020, Kanghong Pharmaceutical also planned to raise 3.472 billion yuan in additional capital, of which 2.573 billion yuan would be used for Conbercept's "overseas expansion.""
5. "康弘药业2022年预盈近9亿同比翻倍手握258项发明专利加码创新药布局" [Kanghong Pharmaceutical's 2022 pre-profit will be nearly 900 million, doubling year-on-year, holding 258 invention patents and increasing its innovative drug layout]. Changjiang Times [zh] (in Chinese). 2023-01-20. Archived from the original on 2024-04-14. Retrieved 2024-04-14 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "长江商报记者注意到，康弘药业净利润的增长主要原因之一为，眼科创新药康柏西普全球多中心临床试验停止。由此导致研发费用等费用下滑，为利润增长打开空间。"
  From Google Translate: "A reporter from the Changjiang Business Daily noticed that one of the main reasons for the growth of Kanghong Pharmaceutical's net profit was the suspension of global multi-center clinical trials of the innovative ophthalmic drug Conbercept. This has led to a decline in R&D expenses and other expenses, opening up room for profit growth."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chengdu Kanghong Pharmaceutical Group (simplified Chinese: 成都康弘药业集团股份有限公司; traditional Chinese: 成都康弘藥業集團股份有限公司) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard's sources are sufficient to meet WP:NCORP, specifically 2/3/4 through a quick skim have the intellectual independence & substantial coverage needed to meet the higher bar. Jumpytoo Talk 19:01, 14 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!} 07:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guanghua Education Group[edit]

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

This Guanghua Education Group article has words in it that sound like an advertorial promotion, and the sources cited are not valid. Also, most of the searches for this Chinese educational organisation in China are for its own official sources, which is not in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (organisations and companies). Zhuo1221 (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zhuo1221 (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I found several sources about a Guanghua Education Group (Chinese: 光华教育集团) in a Google Books search but they were about a different company. This article is about a Guanghua Education Group founded in 2008 and based in Shanghai, while the sources are about a Guanghua Education Group founded in 1995:
1. This book notes: "光华教育集团创办的。集团董事长何光华 5 年内在全国各地建校 11 所,招收在校生 1 万 4 千余人。1995 年光华教育集团就出现危机,当时福州私立光华学校因严重的财政赤字而倒闭。 1996 年 11 月,福建闽侯县法院受理了 40 多位学生家长状告光华学校案,作出 ..." From Google Translate: "Founded by Guanghua Education Group. He Guanghua, chairman of the group, has built 11 schools across the country in five years, enrolling more than 14,000 students. Guanghua Education Group experienced a crisis in 1995, when the private Guanghua School in Fuzhou closed down due to severe financial deficits. In November 1996, the Minhou County Court in Fujian accepted the lawsuit brought by more than 40 parents of students against Guanghua School and made"
2. This book notes: "Guanghua Education Group, Shanghai Guanghua Education Investment Management Co., Ltd. has been established in Luoyang, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Wuxi, Xinjiang, Ningbo, Hefei since its establishment in the early 1990s... Guanghua Education Group relies on the strategy of internal expansion The growth method, through brand radiation and rolling development, has quickly built an education kingdom in just over ten years. In addition to the above list"
3. This book notes: "光华教育集团十所全日制寄宿学校之一,于 1995 年创办,位于宁波慈溪龙山,占地面积 180 余亩,现有学生 600 多人。师资力量雄厚,拥有一支以特、高级教师为学科带头人,以优秀中青年教师为骨干的教师队伍;是浙江教育学院学科教育研究的实验学校、国家多媒体" From Google Translate: "One of the ten full-time boarding schools of Guanghua Education Group, it was founded in 1995 and is located in Longshan, Cixi, Ningbo. It covers an area of more than 180 acres and currently has more than 600 students. The teaching staff is strong, with a team of teachers with special and senior teachers as subject leaders and outstanding young and middle-aged teachers as the backbone; it is an experimental school for subject education research of Zhejiang Institute of Education and a national multimedia."
The sources about the Guanghua Education Group founded in 2008 are largely passing mentions or primary sources.
Cunard (talk) 23:48, 13 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 don't feel great about closing an AFD discussion for an article with a single source of unknown quality but that's the consensus here. If Merge or Redirection is an appropriate solution, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meilong railway station[edit]

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

Because this article does not contain a single citation, the verifiability of this article does not. and Notability (geographic features) is insufficient, and the description of the Meilong Railway Station in the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station. This is a violation of Wikipedia's article on Notability (geographic features), and I suggest that it be deleted to avoid misleading others. CHENG SHIYI (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Stations. CHENG SHIYI (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. The article does now contain a citation, but regardless deletion is not the right answer here. Either it's notable enough for it's own article or it should be merged to an appropriate article (likely the line, system or its successor). It is almost certain that most sources about this station will be in Chinese, so someone who reads that language needs to be consulted to determine what the sourcing situation actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several sources in Baidu Baike version (Mainland China's version of Wikipedia) of this article: [55] Jumpytoo Talk 22:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using the WP:THREE test, Oriental Morning Post, Youth Daily and Zhejiang Online News have reported on the station (or at least its closure). Should push it above WP:GNG. Also, the article is outdated, as the station has been canceled and rebuilt into a new station called Shanghai South Railway Station is an example of a WP:OUTDATED argument, which is generally not a very valid argument for deletion. S5A-0043^Talk 13:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 15 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. The consensus here, relative to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies for deletion, is for deletion at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samarth Kulkarni[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Non-notable CEO of a notable company. All of the sources cited are about the company, apart from this paywalled article in Stat about him winning a "best biopharma CEO" ~~award~~ reader poll. He has appeared on television news to discuss the company and biotech more generally, but those are primary sources, and I couldn't find solid, significant coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to show that he's notable independent from the company. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Biology, Technology, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Wikishovel,

I sent a note on my Talk page but perhaps it's more relevant here. My vote is to keep Kulkarni, and I disagree that he's a non-notable CEO due to the sheer amount of media mentions he has--paywalled and non-paywalled, in affiliation with his tenure at CRISPR. I think he warrants a Wikipedia page alongside other biopharma CEOs of far less newsworthy companies, particularly since he's heading, as you mentioned, a notable company. Would it help if I added/provided different or additional secondary sources? I can have a look around and see what else is available on record. Nathan Evo (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes please: if you can find reliable sources with substantial coverage of him, rather than about the company, then please do add them. Wikishovel (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Enough coverage about the company found, nothing for this person. This is all I can find in a RS [56] that isn't a PR item; he is quoted in a brief paragraph of a few lines in an article about a conference. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to CRISPR Therapeutics. - Altenmann >talk 19:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no in-depth coverage. failed WP:N. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added two additional sources underscoring his notability, principally as "one of the top 25 biotech CEOs of 2020" and "11 Asian-American Executives Shaping the Future of Biopharma." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Nathan Evo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this xfd. [reply]
Keep: He has more coverage than many Wikipedia execs and certainly enough news mentions to belong here, particularly given that he's in the top slot of biotech CEOs. passed WP:N. Georgieam 14:38 31 March 2024 (UTC)— Georgieam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep: Enough coverage in media to be notable.--Afus199620 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article appears to have been expanded since the last delete !vote was posted, although based on arguments made here the balance still favors deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:29, 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) 04:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's notable as a biotech leader and has more than enough media coverage.--Homerseditor, 11:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response to the recent posts endorsing the WP:REFBOMBing, here's a source analysis:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Wikishovel
CRISPR Therapeutics	Press release or paid placement	? Press release	Press release, no byline, includes marketing phone numbers at bottom	✘ No
All About Belgaum	Press release or paid placement	News blog with no byline, obvious COI as it talks about his "proud parents"	user-submitted, not journalism	✘ No
Fierce Biotech	Press release or paid placement	Biotech news blog, no byline	Press release, no byline, includes line about "our vision" at end	✘ No
CRISPR bio	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
Scientific American	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Time magazine	Well established magazine	Byline given, and editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Forbes	Well established magazine	Byline given, editorial oversight clearly outlined on website	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Fierce Pharma	? Sister title of "Fierce Biotech" above, independence unclear	? Byline given in this one, but reliability is unclear	His name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article	✘ No
Healthcare Technology Report	? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	blog, click-bait	? One entry in a list on an SEO blog of the "top healthcare CEOs of 2020", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Timmerman Report	? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content, but it includes a posed photo, apparently from his company	? a post by grad student on a biopharma blog of unknown reliability	One entry on a blog post about the "Asian Americans shaping the future of biopharma", with no explanation of inclusion criteria	✘ No
Centessa	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	Copypaste of his CRISPR Therapeutics company bio above	✘ No
Black Diamond	His bio on his company's website	Company bio	All companies publish bios of their senior mgt	✘ No
ReparerX	Board list on company website	Company bios	His name isn't mentioned on the page	✘ No
Marketscreener	? Some sort of company listings website, might be independent	? no editorial oversight or even contact info listed, might be reliable	directory listing simply confirms that he's head of a company	✘ No
Biotechnology Innovation Organization	membership listing page of an industry association	seems reliable from its "about" page etc	His name isn't mentioned in the list	✘ No
India New England News	clickbait news blog attempting to pass as a newspaper	probably user-generated content as it's mostly a paste of his company bio (and photo) above, otherwise it's paid placement	? the American India Foundation is notable, but this post simply says he and another exec are being "honored at a gala", so the notability of the recognition is unclear	✘ No
STAT+	newspaper	has byline, editorial oversight	~ Some actual reportage here, but it's paywalled, and appears to be about him winning the newspaper's reader poll	~ Partial
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	national TV network	national TV network	interview: primary source	✘ No
WSJ	national newspaper	national newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Cura Foundation	independent foundation with notable backers	interview by notable foundation	interview: primary source	✘ No
The Hill Events	The Hill is an established newspaper with well defined editorial oversight	interview during event sponsored by newspaper	interview: primary source	✘ No
Forbes	Forbes is an independent national newspaper...	? ...but per WP:FORBES they also publish "contributed content", and it's unclear whether this is Forbes' own content or "contributed".	In either case, this is still an interview, therefore a primary source	✘ No
FII Institute	? Future Investment Initiative Institute is a government-sponsored group	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
FT	Financial Times is a national newspaper	interview during event sponsored by group	interview: primary source	✘ No
CNBC	National TV network	news website of the TV network	trivial coverage of his contribution in a highlights summary of a panel discussion	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete. WP:NOTCV and WP:NOTWHOSWHO, routine coverage and interviews are insufficent to write an article from. I don't think the content should be kept in article history either, though I suppose if it is I wouldn't be too broken up about it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 19 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 procedural close‎. The first nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChinaCast Education (by the same nominator), is still open and ongoing. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaCast Education[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article says ChinaCast Education Corporation is the leading for-profit provider of post-secondary education and e-learning services in the People's Republic of China. However, no information can be found on Chinese search engines, and in fact, the media does not continue to focus on this for-profit learning organisation, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability. Zhuo1221 (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zhuo1221 (talk) 04:15, 12 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!} 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radix malorum est cupiditas[edit]

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

Original research fork of love of money/list of Latin phrases Traumnovelle (talk) 03:37, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge back into Love of money and keep the Latin phrase as a redirect to it. Mccapra (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I considered merging initially but aside from the Greek the information is original research, also the Latin given in the article is incorrect: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+6%3A10&version=VULGATE Traumnovelle (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the points made by Tramnovelle. Mccapra (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Finance, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge. The omission of enim is inconsequential but the omission of omnium is not. We don't have evidence that the Latin version of this line is independently notable from the line in all its translations (and if it were notable it would be notable under the Vulgate wording). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SIGCOV, or if needed, redirect to Love of money. It is basically a WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 15 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 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O Jin-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only source doesn't appear to be WP:RS and wouldn't establish notability even if it were. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 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 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Chol-ryong[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 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 02:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Thae-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 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) 13:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxTLE[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A (questionably independent) Softpedia review here [57], some academic coverage [58], [59]. I'm not familiar enough with RS in Thai to search, but this appears important enough in its region and time that I would guess that Thai-language sources are likely to exist. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Thailand. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As with most computing topics back then, its use was covered in detail by a third-party how-to book: บัณฑิต จามรภูติ (2003). การติดตั้ง-ใช้งานลินุกซ์ทะเล และปลาดาวออฟฟิศ [Setting up and using Linux TLE and Pladao Office]. Bangkok: Se-ed. ISBN 974-534-637-3. Also the subject of a master's thesis: On strategies for supporting and developing open source in Thailand : case study Linux TLE, though master's theses aren't usually regarded as WP:RS. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: From sources found. I presume more sources exist in Thai since it seemed to have some involvement from the government. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I considered closing this as no consensus, but one more relist in case someone proficient in Thai wants to try doing a thorough search can't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the one mentioned above, I found more how-to books from different authors and publishers, which should satisfy the GNG's multiple independent sources requirement.[60][61][62] --Paul_012 (talk) 16:56, 13 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 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. There is a good case for arguing that this discussion should be closed as No consensus but taking in all comments, I'm closing this discussion as a Redirect to the election article. This will preserve article content in case his notability changes after the election but acknowledges those editors arguing for Delete who state that he presently isn't notable enough for a standalone article in main space. So, it's a bit of a compromise and I think a Redirect is more helpful for readers rather that moving the page to Draft space. If his situation changes after the election this summer, this discussion closure can be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Hovde[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. Coverage is of his campaign and does not establish WP:GNG apart from his candidacy for office. Marquardtika (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Marquardtika (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conservatism, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Subject does not yet demonstrate notability outside of the context of the 2024 election that he is running in, making this a WP:BIO1E consideration. If he wins in November, he'll be notable. If he loses, will he really be? I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as subject is currently de facto expected primary winner barring death or a complete collapse of their campaign before August; the article needs more development. Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Said subject has now been endorsed by 45; only noting this in case we have to relist, still looking to draftify and develop this. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination says the subject "Does not meet WP:NPOL," but that doesn't really tell us anything. That standard identifies cases where we can presume a politician is notable, but it doesn't say that other politicians are not notable. Nor is this a case of WP:BIO1E; by its own terms that rule ("cover the event, not the person") loosens considerably as the coverage of the event or person grows. Here, we're talking about sustained coverage of not only the race but of the subject himself.

Moreover, it's clear that the subject is notable for his involvement in a variety of endeavors with no substantial connection to the current campaign, such as:

70.167.90.50 (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driving a dive bar out of business doesn't get you an article. Being in investment person isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A breakdown of the articles you cite: Rolling Stone: Coverage of a local real estate deal. Business Insider: The mention of Hovde Capital is trivial to the mention of Bill Ackman. That trivial mention is because of a New York Times guest column. New York Times: One-off guest columnist does not create notability under WP:AUTHOR. OC Register: A brief mention in the buying of a bankrupt builder in a local publication in a local area where Hovde is at least a part time resident. You are more than welcome to revise the article add these sources. Maybe it'll influence editors the article should not be redirected or deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So it's PROMO. Outside of politics, he has barely a paragraph about his financial career, so I'm not seeing notability. He's not notable as a hedge fund person, there is only confirmation of political campaigns. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable as demonstrated through the over 22 sources cited. However the article needs work and should be fleshed out in regard to his business endeavors Microplastic Consumer (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Had this person become a perennial candidate, complicating an appropriate alternative to deletion?Djflem (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has run for office twice--once in 2012 and once in 2024--so no. Marquardtika (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: article seems premature, could change as the campaign goes by. Though the article should definitely be deleted if he loses the primary in August, unless a suitable reason to keep it (or make a full article) emerges. Talthiel (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hovde has been in Wisconsin politics for longer than just 2024. He can also be considered a humanitarian, given his charity organization. I would also argue that Wikipedia is a site for information about people of importance. This page can be used to help people learn more about Hovde, not just as a politician but as a man as well. In short, Hovde is an important figure for his charity work and his political campaigns, and I argue his page should stay up as more people would continue to add to the page. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this article is failing to demonstrate sustained notability in other contexts besides non-winning election campaigns. The number of footnotes an article has is not a notability claim in and of itself, either, especially when a considerable number of them are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability — GNG is not just "count up the hits and keep anybody who's surpassed an arbitrary cutoff number", and takes into account the context of what any given source is "covering" the topic for, but the merely expected run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of an election is not a notability-securing context. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing the WP:NPOL rule is moot when you consider the criteria of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." In Wisconsin, where I live, Hovde is gaining considerable media coverage, and has been positioned as the most likely to win the Republican primary. While yes, it is not certain that he will win, if he does win it will be contradictory to recreate this article for him again. I will also argue his campaign is not run of the mill as you suggested, but holds many interesting aspects, including his positions on immigration and alcohol. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" is for mayors and city councillors, not unelected candidates for anything. And even winning the primary still wouldn't be grounds for an article: the baseline for recreation would be winning the general election in November. Bearcat (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's not even a good redirect target as there's absolutely no point to this article apart from the fact they were a failed candidate and even includes elections he thought about running in, but didn't. Absolutely not notable enough. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are way smaller stubs about less notable political figures on Wikipedia, so I think it has merit to stay, at least in a greatly restructured form. Serious discussion for deletion should wait until after the primary on August 13th, with him winning or losing being the reason to delete or not. If he wins, he becomes a major party's nominee in a heavily contested Senate race, making him a notable political figure for at least the 2024 cycle. Him winning the nomination also gives him more media attention, and therefore more robust citations and factoids for the article. If he loses, I am fine with deletion and rolling it under 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin page. Ultimately, we should wait until after the primary to make such a decision. Dillguy9 (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Other stuff existing is literally an argument to avoid.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per others Cannolorosa (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NPOL as a failed political nominee in a single election. Is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he's currently the leading candidate for the Republican primary in Wisconsin, a state that elects a lot of Republicans. People will be looking him up. If he loses, we can delete it then. Mareino (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A US senate candidate is always of public interest and therefore notable. Considering that it is hard to get a comprehensive view of a candiate's stances and that campaign websites are inherently biased in favour of the candidate, it would be a loss to delete the article. 2003:E2:AF1B:5F01:9DA1:29C7:E339:C5D3 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC) lars 01:38, 4 April 2024 (CET)[reply]

The relevant question isn't "is he in the current news cycle right now?" — it's "if he loses the election and then never does anything else, so that having been an unsuccessful candidate in an election is his peak notability for all time, then will people still be looking for information about him 20 or 30 or 50 years into the future?" We're writing history here, not news, and just being a candidate in an election is not grounds for permanent inclusion in an encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has received substantial coverage in reliable sources and its reasonable to assume it will be sustained coverage as he's the Republican nominee for a highly competitive US senate race. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin should note that there is a semi-viral tweet directing people here, hence the sudden influx of people. EoRdE6^(Talk) 00:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off-wiki link in question: [63] - Skipple ☎ 00:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fits the notability guidelines. Multiple sources cited in the article demonstrate reliable, significant coverage independent of the subject. This includes NBC News, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and HuffPost.--Panian513 00:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: As others have noted, he does not meet notability guidelines unless he wins. Mad Mismagius (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not about the number of responses. The arguments and sources are not impressive. To keep such an article, make a stronger case based on police, reliable sources, and clear evidence of notability beyond simply running for office.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AbsoluteKermity

(Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 14:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify: just echoing what others have said, but he has no notability whatsoever outside of the context of the election, which already has its own article and covers all necessary information. if he becomes a Senator, this can be revisited. Griffindaly (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In all likelihood, Eric Hovde will be the Republican Party's nominee for United States Senate, thus giving him notability for now. Having his page up will keep voters in Wisconsin informed about him throughout the election. If he loses the election, then deleting the page would be appropriate. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC
Delete There is no such thing as "notability for now" as it is not temporary. Even being the nominee doesn't meet WP:NPOL as he still would not be notable outside the campaign. If Hovde wins, then he would merit an article but he currently has not even won the primary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep arguments are just special pleading not supported by references to Wikipedia's notablility guidelines. The general rule is that politicians don't get articles until they win, and insufficient evidence to justify a special case has been presented. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bernie Moreno isn't a politician, yet his page isn't up for deletion. MisterWeegee (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC) — MisterWeegee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to start Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernie Monero * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. We have in the past almost always redirected such articles about individual candidates. If consensus has changed, or we should take this as an exception, please convince me. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, that is done in cases where the candidate wins the primary and is a nominee in the general election. Hovde is currently only a primary candidate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ I come again to defend this. I don't see why the page should be taken down. Hovde is a businessman who also heads a charitable organization. If you argue he is not popular enough to notable enough to have a page, then I want to argue that it is hard to say what is and isn't notable. Via the WP:NPOL guidelines, a candidate must have gained considerable coverage.^[a]^[b]

Hovde covers most, if not all the bases for somebody to have a page. I don't see any clear reason why it would be logical to delete a page that is not harming anybody by staying up. Wikipedia was founded to have free information for all, and it's best we stay to that. A page about Hovde can help people learn about him, and give them primary sources to learn about his policies and his background. AbsoluteKermity (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: AbsoluteKermity (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Keep: I don't think we should be counting out Hovde just yet. It's very likely he'll win the Republican primary, and like others have said, if he wins the primary, but loses the general elections, then the page could be deleted. I don't see why the page has to be deleted just because he's "not someone notable." MisterWeegee (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually an argument for deletion, because we have a rule that once you're notable, you're always notable. If we'd delete him when he lost, that means he's not notable yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And we aren't counting [him] out at all. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectto 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin as a usual and appropriate outcome. (also everything per Bearian and Bearcat) There are many Wikipedia policies that explain suggest why this project should not be a repository of campaign material, including no requirement for fairness. --Enos733 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in Wisconsin or 2012 United States Senate election in Wisconsin. The article states that Eric Holvde is a candidate for statewide office, businessman, financier, and banker. First, WP:NPOL guidelines do not confer a presumption of notability onto candidates, but some candidates can meet GNG for their candidacies. Example candidates like Christine O'Donnell, Lar Daly, or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) are a guide to what I am referring. Holvde's candidacy has received run of the mill coverage from national publications that any swing-state, statewide candidate would receive in a media climate where political hobbyists like me obsess over elections. It also over-relies on the AP article about his campaign further demonstrating the failure of significant coverage. This fails the significant coverage test. Sources should also be independent of the subject, for which the issues section fails. Anything that is not the AP article is his Twitter and his website. Businessman, financier, and banker, while all separate things, in layperson terms are redundant. If we take the extent of his business career as found in non-secondary sources via Google search at face-value, I cannot say it would fail GNG. However, that's not what the article is at present or has ever been. Nothing in any searches lead me to believe we should presume it can be established. The article also engages in a number of efforts to mask the lack of notability via "building a biography." Do we really need to know every time he chose not to run for office? That's ultimately trivial. Millions of people choose not to run every cycle. In the early life section, the bulk of it is information about his father who is not the subject of this article. Notability is not inherited by family ties alone. The likliehood he will be the Republican nominee is irrelevant as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot have an article based on possible notability once election season really gets underway. Finally, as I always try to leave for candidate deletion discussions, an article about yourself is not a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References inserted by contributors

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More on redirect vs. draftify as an ATD please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirecting is more appropriate per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. To quote POLOUTCOMES, they are not moved to user space for fear of establishing a precedent that any premature article about an as-yet-unelected candidate for office can be kept in draftspace pending election returns, effectively making draftspace a repository for campaign brochures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs)

Delete Per the terrible keep arguments presented above. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people and events. Any candidate for statewide office will attract routine coverage. This does not equate to enduring notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not, and indeed, cannot meet NPOL since he has never held elected office. He can, of course, be found notable per the general notability guideline, but I do not see significant coverage to support it. Would those supporting the article care to point to WP:THREE sources that best establish the subject's claim? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:26, 19 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for the deletion of this article, and a reasonable argument by those opposed to deletion that the subject meets WP:LISTN. Concerns about the presentation of this list might be resolved by the proposal made in the discussion to move this article to Fatal dog attacks in the United States, and shift the focus from the mere list to the general phenomenon. I will file a WP:RM proposal after completing this closure. BD2412 T 02:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If you came here because of a reddit post, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE,WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS many of the entries are sourced to dogsbites.org which isn't a reliable source (see:[64]) and I've noticed a few entries were not supported by source. This list is near impossible to maintain and review and has little encyclopaedic value. List of fatal dog attacks already exists and it will be easier to manage all the verifiability issues with a single list Traumnovelle (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add onto why this list should be removed in just the 2024 section I've had to rewrite 7/10 breed descriptions due to not being verified with the sources given. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And i will have to rewritte like 99% of the deaths because somebody removed alot of them. For exaple, 2021 has only 3 fatalities now! CComp542Version372 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be advised the user above is a likely WP:SPA of User:CComp542Veraion19. Conyo14 (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How'd you know? CComp542Veraion19 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — CComp542Veraion19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Intuition ;) Conyo14 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The project-space pages cited in the nomination mainly refer to article content and editorial decisions made therein. We should be assessing this from the notability standpoint, particularly using WP:NLIST; are there independent reliable sources available that cover these list entries as a group or set? Left guide (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this comment. I want to add that most of the entries with no reliable source where made by one user that started to edit a month ago. I kept an eye on it because I thought it might be "clever vandalism" to discredit this list. But then I thought maybe this person is new, so I did not intervene. And since it was mostly done one section it was easy to keep an eye on. Furthermore I think most of this cases can be co firmed by a reliable primary source, they are most likely not made up. Those entries should be improved not removed. Wikigrund (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has nothing to do with systemic bias as far as I can tell? Having a list of content related to one country doesn't mean it's systemic bias, we have tons of per-country lists. The second article you mentioned is not a list, so saying we currently have two articles on this topic isn't true.
Content problems can be solved - if there are problem entries, remove them. The only grounds here to delete that have any standing would be indiscriminate, which I don't think this is, the topic of the list is notable - there seem to be sources that cover "fatal dog attacks in America" and list them, though with less detail. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "many entries are sourced to dogsbites.org" does not seem to be true. There's a few that are, but it's not "many". Just remove those or find alternative sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's over 65 entires that are cited to dogsbite.org, that's a substantial portion of the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I count 7 citations to dogsbite.org, plus the pre-2016 section. The rest of it seems fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-2016 section is still part of the article and a large portion of it. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a large portion, 2020+2021 individually outsize it. It's also badly constructed (for some reason in reverse order? formatted quite differently for the rest of the page? arbitrarily starts at 2005?) If this is kept just remove it and start over IMO PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And which specific sources cover "fatal dog attacks in America" as a group or set as required by WP:NLIST criteria? Left guide (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on what you count as "as a set"? I feel like the NLIST guideline is vague on that. There are yearly listings of how many people died in dog attacks, counting breeds and often recounting specific high profile incidents, and studies of sets of fatal dog attacks over specific periods of time. I don't think we really need the victim details/news here maybe, so this could be cut down.

I was more bothered by the rationale used. If this is deleted the parent list should also go. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to the parent list going either as all the same issues apply really, but I want to see what the overall consensus is this time around for the list. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think some sort of listing is probably warranted but the only quality the sources focus on seems to be breed - idk, maybe cut down to age/sex/dog breed/amount of dog instead of the news-style listings (the details of the case are not usually focused on)

Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998 - focuses on items from this period as a set (i think), breed information, that stuff

Traumatic deaths from dog attacks in the United States - similar to the above

non american ones (for broader list)

Fatal dog attacks in Spain under a breed-specific legislation: A ten-year retrospective study

Bitten or struck by dog: A rising number of fatalities in Europe, 1995–2016

I feel like the news-type details should probably be cut down but some of the statistics here are probably worth keeping. Could be merged into something else though I guess? IDK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that breed identification has been demonstrated to be typically unreliable: [65] [66] [67] [68] I'm not sure that having breed data would be useful, out of the 10 articles in 2024 I had to modify 7 due to the breeds listed being unverified/original research and that's before getting into the unreliability of breed identification and that most news articles won't specify whether the breed was identified via registration, dna testing, or by visual identification. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Your very first source there has Gary Patronek as a lead author, and he is affiliated with the National Canine Research Council, [69] a group that primarily exists to lobby for pitbulls. And given that 40% (if I recall correctly) of dogs that attack are previously known to the victims, it seems likely that they know what kind of a dog it is. Regardless, breed does correlate with attack severity, with pitbulls causing the greatest injury, and this is documented in medical journals [70], activist papers in veterinary journals don't make that go away. Geogene (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of mentioning pit bulls? We're discussing whether breed identification is reliable. You call it an activist paper but their methodology is listed and the paper was peer reviewed, it's not invalid because the author has an affiliation with a group. There are still 3 other studies listed. Here's another source pointing out the same thing: [71]. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead author of that paper, Victoria L. Voith, is, not surprisingly, also affiliated with the National Canine Research Council. [72] Perhaps you will see the pattern now? Geogene (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being affiliated with the group doesn't make the study unreliable. Do all the studies have affiliations with that group or just those three? Traumnovelle (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being affiliated with this group indicates a certain bias toward whether or not the breed of vicious dogs is identifiable. That's a good reason to throw out your sources. And you haven't breathed a word about my source that says breed does correlate with attack severity -- and by implication that breed is determinable after an attack. Geogene (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the paper has a proper methodology and is peer reviewed it's conclusions can be accepted. An author may have a bias but the results will speak on their own.

I only read the free preview for that study but it doesn't appear to even address the idea that breed identification may be unreliable so using it to conclude that breed identification is reliable is quite close to WP:SYNTH Traumnovelle (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly--it's a more recent and higher quality paper that doesn't even acknowledge the NCRC's position that breed identification might not be reliable. That's evidence that the "you can't identify breed" viewpoint clearly does not represent any kind of scientific consensus, and should probably be ignored. That has nothing to do with WP:SYNTH, by the way. No idea where you are getting this stuff from. Geogene (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The study isn't addressing the idea of if breed identification is reliable nor even mentioning it. It's a conclusion not mentioned in the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it doesn't address that. Because nobody claims that breed identification is unreliable, except for a very specific small group of veterinarians affiliated with a very specific lobbying group. Geogene (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This study from 1965, whilst not about breed identification notes that mixed-breed dogs (which happen to make up a decent portion of the US dog population) look vastly different [73].

There's also the other two studies which you haven't shown a link to said group.

A bias with the authors doesn't render a study invalid anyhow, they must still adhere to standards and the study is peer reviewed. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those yearly listings might be a good start, are you able to bring them into this discussion? I don't have the time or inclination to wade through the 250+ references in the article, but I'd be willing to look at WP:THREE. Left guide (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, meant to link the existing list. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the grounds given for deleting here apply to that as well, so if we delete this that should probably go as well. It is not systemic bias to have a list only applying to one country. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Animal, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reasons listed for deletion are insufficient. Cortador (talk) 08:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And your keep rationale is insufficient. If you think there are fundamental problems with the nomination, you should explain why. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of fatal dog attacks. The nom describe my rationale perfectly, but mainly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The population of the US is not dependent on the per capita regional fatalities of dogs in other countries. Conyo14 (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That list should be deleted as well, for the same reasons as this one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that notion per reputable sources such as [74], [75], and [76]. Notable topic, just indiscriminate to have one country favored over others. Conyo14 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily per WP:NOTNEWS. While the overall topic of dog attacks is certainly notable, a comprehensive (or not-so comprehensive even) list of every single one of them isn't. These are run of the mill news stories, however tragic. We also don't keep lists on every single other type of insert-unusual-cause-of-death, per WP:NOT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit the list topic is notable, but you still want to delete the page? Geogene (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In response to the stated Rationales for Deletion (RfDs)

- The WP:INDISCRIMINATE RfD is not supported because the discussion at the top of the list puts the list items in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, which are citations [1] - [4], consistent with the criteria in the description of WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

- The article's introductory discussion also addresses a potential WP:NLIST RfD because "the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which are citations [1] - [4], and a stand-alone list related to a notable topic conforms with WP:LISTN. It is the topic of "Fatal Dog Attacks" rather than the individual incidents that qualify the list as "notable."

- The WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS RfD is not supported because the list acknowledges that its geographic restriction ("in the United States") and that it is incomplete, rather than being, for example, "list of dog attacks" that only lists attacks in the United States.

- The WP:RECENTISM RfD is not supported because the topic of fatal dog attacks is demonstrably an item of enduring interest, rather than a singular recent event.

- The WP:NOTNEWS RfD is not supported because 1) the article does not contain "routine" news reporting - "dog bites man" is routine, but "dog kills man" is a rare event can generate multiple news stories over several days, including analysis of dog & human interaction, as well as intense, emotional commentary; 2) the article is not a "news story" about one event or multiple events, rather, it is a stand-alone list of events under a notable topic.

There are certainly issues with some of the list items, e.g., the use of unreliable sources, but it seems to me those can be addressed individually by marking them for further editing and improvement rather than by deleting the entire list of otherwise reliably sourced information. Astro$01 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is, in my view, is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTNEWS. Just because there's some sourced information for the topic "fatal dog attacks in the United States", does not mean the bulk of the list is not INDISCRIMINATE (or that it meats WP:LISTN). Most of the article's sources are routine local articles that simply report "Local person dies of dog attack". which unfortunately isn't that rare of an event. And while such events can includ[e] analysis of dog & human interaction, that isn't the case in the vast majority of the given sources here. This is also pretty much the same reasons why the 2014 article was deleted. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the FIFTH AfD. The talk page lists three, but there was one in 2014, so this is the fifth. Unless there are some totally new arguments, it is frivolous and a waste of our time. Even worse, there is no discussion on the talk page, not even a notice there. We need a speedy close. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not rationale, this is a mix of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:BUREAUCRACY. Would you like to repeat your rationale from the prior listings? Conyo14 (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfDs had no consensus so bringing up a new one is perfectly acceptable. Speedy keep does not apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the result of the first RfD was "Keep", but some folks seem unable to accept that so they keep coming back every few years to see if they can finally find a scare up enough votes to kill it. I say, "enough votes" because the arguments for deletion really haven't changed much in 14 years. ```Astro$01 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A RfD from 14 years ago? That is no way grounds for speedy keep. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that your earlier statement, "The previous AFDs had no consensus" was false. There was consensus consensus to keep. Astro$01 (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was consensus to keep 14 years ago, later AfDs had no consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NLIST , One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. In other words, do sources exist that discuss Fatal Dog Attacks in the United States as a group? Yes, they do, for example, [77], [78], [79] Dog attacks are a perennial subject of scholarly interest, therefore, lists of such incidents are inherently notable by WP guidelines. By the way, just because something is covered by news, does not automatically make it susceptible to a WP:NOTNEWS argument. You may also enjoy similar topics in Wikipedia, like List of fatal crowd crushes, List of fatal bear attacks in North America, List of fatal shark attacks in the United States, List of fatal snake bites in Australia (note that the "in the United States" or "in Australia" does not indicate systemic bias, either), List of fatal alligator attacks in the United States, List of fatal shark attacks in South Africa, List of deadliest floods, and List of deaths on eight-thousanders. Geogene (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list meets the needed criteria for such lists. This kind of lists do exist for several countries. (Worldwide with separate linked pages for USA, UK, Austria, Germany, Canada, Spain). I do not think it is a good idea to merge them. I think it is better to have individual pages since different countries have different laws and focal points.

For example Austria did have law changes after almost every fatal and also nearly fatal incident. (German version of the page is longer). Also this often was accompanied by week-long public discussions. The impact on society and the federal states is quite interesting.

I started to edit the USA-list because I was reading the cases anyway, so I thought I add the missing ones to Wikipedia. I also made changes and put the states at the beginning to make it sortable or searchable by state.

Although the USA are not my main interrest (I am focused on dog laws, animal welfare and dog bite injuries). This lists help me to search for information or cases I need.

I try to improve the page. In the future I want to add more on the legal part, but since I am not local sometimes I can't access the archives or even the news pages.

I think it is good to keep a short description of each case. At least the state it happened in and information if it was a stray dog, loose dog, family dog and what the legal consequences for the owners were. Or if local laws on keeping animals have been changed due to the fatalities.

I feel some people want this lists deleted because they just don't like it (5th delete request). There seems to be some hyperfocus on the "dog type" category. But since there are a lot of people watching this page it is not too hard to keep the information accurate.

Also I noticed that some users delete sources (which is ok if they are blacklisted or unreliable) but instead of adding a reliable source (that is available), they delete the verifyable content like the "dog type" or they delete the whole entry. I think they are just looking for excuses to delete information. Wikigrund (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 'Fatal dog attacks' is a subject of broad interest which has earned significant historic as well as ongoing news coverage and study. Fatal dog attacks have been a public safety concern for governments and society from the local level to entire countries. The subject itself easily passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:LISTN, and the list entries are well cited with reliable sources.

Despite multiple prior attempts to remove this article, it has remained up since it was created in 2009 precisely because it satisfies the key criteria for a standalone list article in Wikipedia. For example, the closing statement for the first two AfDs, in 2010 and in 2019, declared the subject notable. Topics do not lose their notability status.

Similar collections of fatal dog attack incidents have been compiled and published, and used for the last 40 to 50 years to analyze trends in attacks—e.g., by dog breed or ownership, or by victim age and sex, [80], to propose solutions for public safety or public education, [81] and generally to determine what can be done about the risks [82] of an animal species kept by more than 40% [83] of American households.

The topic is of interest to lawmakers, the insurance industry, the medical establishment, lawyers, landlords, and many other sectors of society—anywhere incidents and trends are tabulated and discussed—and each of these factions has published on the topic.

Wikipedia should reflect, rather than downplay, society's participation in this public interest topic. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply here because the article isn't covering a single event. Nor are fatal events "routine" news, despite the increase in fatalities over the years.

There are ongoing debates in the public narrative of whether aggressive behaviors in canines are heritable, i.e., an attribute of a breed, and there have been studies published supporting each side of the debate.

Some editors want to omit breed information that has been reported by reliable sources as if it is "not accurate enough"—per their own original research or point of view on the matter. Wikipedia guidelines do not require such an exceptionally detailed and critical examination of RS data points.

Meanwhile, because the public is interested and in need of good information, the media continues to report on breeds in attack events, allowing researchers to evaluate fatal dog attack data, to include the breeds of dogs involved in their data sets, and to publish their findings. Similarly, there is no reason to omit breed information in this Wikipedia article. Note, however, that the decision to include or exclude breed is a content issue, and not an article deletion matter, and thus is not relevant in the weighing of this AfD.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Like previous AFDs, I don't see a consensus here yet. As Geogene points out, it doesn't matter if there are no similar articles for other countries, we have multiple country-specific lists. And I think it is important not to get lost in the weeds and argue about whether or not the breed of dog should be included and verified. What's essential is whether or not this article satisfies WP:NLIST and whether there are sources that establish notability of this subject. Don't get distracted by elements that can be improved through editing and focus on the big picture of whether or not this article is suitable for the project, according to our policies and standards of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of fatal dog attacks, along with serious dog bite injuries, are of specific interest to pediatric trauma surgeons, as shown in the following six medical journal articles; note that providing breed, location, and demographic data is particularly useful.

Life-threatening dog attacks: A devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries, Journal of Pediatric Surgery

Calkins, Casey M.; Bensard, Denis D.; Partrick, David A.; Karrer, Frederick M. (2001-08-01). "Life-threatening dog attacks: A devastating combination of penetrating and blunt injuries". Journal of Pediatric Surgery. 36 (8): 1115–1117. doi:10.1053/jpsu.2001.25670. PMID 11479838. Retrieved 2024-03-29.

Essig 2019 study, "Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis"

Essig, Garth F.; Sheehan, Cameron; Rikhi, Shefali; Elmaraghy, Charles A.; Christophel, J. Jared (2019). "Dog bite injuries to the face: Is there risk with breed ownership? A systematic review with meta-analysis". International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. 117: 182–188. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.11.028. ISSN 1872-8464. PMID 30579079.

Golinko's 2016 study, "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution" Short Reference: ^[1]

Golinko, Michael; Arslanian, Brian; Williams, Joseph (2016-07-10). "Characteristics of 1616 Consecutive Dog Bite Injuries at a Single Institution". Clinical Pediatrics. 56. doi:10.1177/0009922816657153.

O'Brien et al., 2015 study, "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment" Short Reference: ^[2]

O'Brien, Daniel C.; Andre, Tyler B.; Robinson, Aaron D.; Squires, Lane D.; Tollefson, Travis T. (2015). "Dog bites of the head and neck: an evaluation of a common pediatric trauma and associated treatment". American Journal of Otolaryngology. 36 (1): 32–38. doi:10.1016/j.amjoto.2014.09.001. ISSN 1532-818X. PMID 25311183.

Bini's 2011 study, "Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs", Annals of Surgery Short Reference: ^[3]

Bini, John K.; Cohn, Stephen M.; Acosta, Shirley M.; McFarland, Marilyn J.; Muir, Mark T.; Michalek, Joel E. (2011). "Mortality, mauling, and maiming by vicious dogs". Annals of Surgery. 253 (4): 791–797. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318211cd68. ISSN 1528-1140. PMID 21475022.

Short Reference: ^[4] Kaye et al.'s 2009 study, "Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5-Year Review of the Experience at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia"

Kaye, Alison E.; Belz, Jessica M.; Kirschner, Richard E. (2009). "Pediatric Dog Bite Injuries: A 5-Year Review of the Experience at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia". Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. 124 (2): 551. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181addad9. ISSN 0032-1052. Retrieved 2023-08-11.

Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether List of fatal dog attacks is a notable subject, it's whether specifically only the United States deserves rational notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If List of fatal dog attacks is notable, then so is this per WP:SUMMARY (and common sense): "Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections." -- Jfhutson (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was a similar deletion discussion about List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom in 2021.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal dog attacks in the United Kingdom

The result was keep. Wikigrund (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IAW WP:NLIST. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is a topic of sufficient relevance for encyclopedic scope, not just a random compilation. And the article is very well referenced. Svartner (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being well referenced does not equate to the sources being reliable. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as original research. Besides the fact that this only goes back a few decades, there's any number of questions a historian can throw out this about methodology, completeness, accuracy of sources, bias..... It's also trespassing on WPINDESCRIMINATE for the same reasons. It doesn't matter whether anyone would like us to have this data, because we are not the proper venue. this is something for a research journal. Mangoe (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this page should be deleted. It contributes to misinformation of breeds, which can feed into Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) as well as quantified analysis. Furthermore, it is quite targeted towards breeds of a certain stature/strength as smaller dogs such as Chihuahuas and small terriers are highly unlikely to cause death of an individual, however, score much worse on temperament tests and statistically do cause more injuries to people and other dogs. Any research/statistics should be qualitative and provide a complete statistical representation. This, however, is not realistically feasible. Given the article is both incomplete and inaccurate data, it should be removed. 2404:440C:2A5F:8000:FC00:6ED1:C82F:5245 (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article not included on Wikipedia pages of breeds other than Pitbulls? This in itself highlights the biased and incomplete nature of the article and reporting within it. 2404:440C:2A5F:8000:FC00:6ED1:C82F:5245 (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read a paper today, "Extensive and mutilating craniofacial trauma involving defleshing and decapitation: unusual features of fatal dog attacks in the young" in American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, by Tsokos et al., 2007, that said, “Pit bull–type” dogs refers to a variety of breeds including the bull terrier, the Staffordshire bull terrier, the American pit bull terrier, and the American Staffordshire terrier. These dogs seem to be a particular problem compared with other breeds as they tend not to make threatening gestures, such as snarling or baring of teeth, prior to attacking and so there may be no warning of impending aggressive behavior. Pit bulls also take multiple bites and have greater jaw pressures than most other dogs, reaching 1800 pounds per square inch. Once attached, they also continue to grind their premolars and molars into tissues while holding on with their canine teeth causing greater amounts of soft-tissue.... (and do not Google that paper lightly, there are reasons I'm not linking to it directly here) I don't see why Wikipedia owes any duty to censor reliably sourced information about specific types of dog that some peer reviewed journal papers consider problematic in the interest of "righting great wrongs". I also don't think it's appropriate to suggest that Wikipedia should take a political stance on Breed-Specific Legislation, or for Wikipedia to self-censor for that reason. Geogene (talk) 02:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you said and wanted to add that the column says "dog type" not "dog breed confirmed by DNA".

I try to be as accurate as possibel, so if a Belgian Shepherd fatally bit someone I add the variety into the column (Groenendael, Tervuren, Malinois or Laekenois) if mentioned in the source. Same with pit bulls, I try to go into details if possible.

Some seem to think this is a "List of fatal dog breeds", NO it is a list of fatal dog attacks which also includes information about the dog. But it also includes information about the year it happend, the state, the age and sex of the victim, the circumstances, the injuries, the relationship with the dog, the dogs name, if the dog was mistreated and if the dog was euthanized and more. Why should all this be deleted if researches look for such information? Wikigrund (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The bulk of the article is cited to secondary sources and, therefore, is not original research. Can you please provide specific examples of content that you believe editors have created? Yes, the article is incomplete/missing years but that is not a reason to delete it. As in, Wikipedia is a process and has no deadline. Also, including breeds that have fatally attcked and excluding those breeds (i.e.smaller dog breeds) that have not killed is not bias, but sticking to the subject of the article. This article is about fatal attacks, not any attack or breed temperments. Bias would be if someone went through the article and removed all references to a specific breed or specifically left out a breed that has fatally attacked. You provide no evidence of actual bias, just your personal diagreement with the article's content. Rublamb (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some now fixed examples: [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sufficient that the sources are somehow secondary, which I would contest in any case: it's the whole collecting procedure in the first place. You say that "if researches look for such information", but it matters whether it's a good sample if it is to be used for data. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are adequate reliable secondary sources on this topic to prove its notability and general interest. I agree that the article needs work and that not all of its content is adequately sourced. That is why tags exist (see WP:ATD-T) However, the decision to delete or keep an article is not based on its current condition but on whether or not there are enough potential sources to meet the general guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia and to improve its content. When searching Newspapers.com for "dog bit death", I got 81 results. Even if we limited this article to incidents with national coverage or deaths that received out-of-area coverage or coverage in major newspapers, there are more than enough sources to meet notability. For example, my search for "dog bite death USA" in the Washington Post yielded more than 3,000 hits. Even though many of those are false hits, only five of those potential sources need to be usable for this article to soundly meet notability. I disagree with the recommendation to merge this because of its length and potential to get even longer. It is common practice for long lists that cover the world or the entire United States to be split into smaller chunks, such as by country or by state. There are several reasons behind this practice, one being that not all Wikipedia users and editors have devices that can deal with that much data. Also, it is hard to keep the balance between all components of a worldwide article if a country like the United States seems overrepresented because it has more new coverage. Instead, it is a better practice to summarize the US in the world list, and the US have as much coverage warranted by events and sources. Rublamb (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fairly weak keep for me, because I'm not particularly enthusiastic about it, but it seems to me that we use list pages for topics like this. We have other, similar list pages in Category:Lists of fatal dog attacks by country, and I see no reason why a US list would be more or less problematic than the others. As demonstrated by other editors above, there is adequate sourcing for a significant number (even if, perhaps, not all) of the individual entries, and there is adequate sourcing to define the topic as a whole. The list is long enough that there isn't a good reason for a merge, and I'm not seeing any policy problems with defining it by having been in the US. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fatal dog attacks in the United States and drop the list. Been mulling this one over a few days reading over the comments, and so far I haven't seen anything would have convinced me to close this list as keep from a WP:PAG perspective as someone uninvolved. I'm a mixed bag on the entirety of the article, but I do agree with others mentioning WP:INDISCRIMINATE that there is a tension here in terms of WP:NLIST that is not going away by just keeping the list. I haven't seen a comment here really showing that NLIST is actually satisfied. That said, and this is a key distinction I've noticed some keep !votes have blurred, is that the general topic of fatal dog attacks, or even dog attacks in the US is notable. That distinction should be looked at more closely in !votes at the close. Instead of a list article, a regular article on the subject using what sources summarize instead of us editors indiscriminately grabbing from headlines for a list would be very valid from a policy perspective. Let the secondary sources give an overview of frequency, breeds, victim demographics, etc. as the intro to the current list already does rather than keep trying to use a list format. KoA (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding on so I'm not re-editing my original post again, but as I read over the meat many of the keeps, they're really making a case not for having a list article, but rather for covering the subject of dog attacks in general. That's very different than justifying having a list article, so there is some confounding going on with this AfD due to the current target basically having: 1. a start (or more than just that) of an article, 2. a list. Wires shouldn't be crossed between the current status of article text that could be split off and the list itself at least for assessing list notability. That at least in part looks like what has caused issues in assessing this with the multiple AfD noms over time, so I think the eventual closer will have some heavier lifting than normal to sort through the keep !votes carefully. KoA (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point, that the topic may be better suited to a regular article than to a list page. I'm inclined to agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect your recommedation is to move the article, rather than merging, as the article you suggest merging with only exists as a redirect. The narrative lede to the list is appropriate for FL class articles. A long lede does not mean that aarticle should not be a list. In this case, there is an existing precident for articles that are titled "List of fatal dog attacks in (country)". Therefore, it makes more sense to leave the existing title and format so that Wikipedia users can easily find information for various countires. In addition, the table format gives users the ability to search and sort data — something that is not possible in a narrative article. I suggest expanding the columns in the tables so the list can be sorted by age, and gender, etc., increasing the ways the data can be accessed. I was going to do this when I did a quick copy edit, but decided to wait for the outcome of this discussion. Rublamb (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Functionally you could call it a move, but I put it as merge/redirect because that link already exists and that's part of the existing AfD framework options. That and it it would involve content changes.

As for the rest, the existing narrative doesn't matter for notability discussion, and the rest is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that doesn't really matter in terms of policy and guideline. The reality is that the notability lies with the subject itself as a main article, not a list. KoA (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response: MOS says "Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles." They just use a different format to convey information. There does not need to be what you call a "main article" to support a list article. In the case of an article about a university, there might be a main article and related lists articles (alumni, sports, Greek letter organizations, campus buildings, etc.) because the combined content is too long for one article. But in this instance, the article in question is the main article. According to WP Lists, a lede is an important part of the best list articles that achieve FA class. The lede of this article is on topic and correctly provides context for this list; thus, it should be part of the notability discussion. @KoA, what you are proposing is an article name change/move and a format change which is different from an AfD discussion. That being said, it looks like you think topic meets or can meet notability, and that the article should be retained with a name and format to be determined at a later date? Rublamb (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's mostly irrelevant for this discussion, and I'd suggest reading WP:NNC. No one is talking about there needing to be a main article to support a list article. We don't create lists for every regular article either. Not every topic that satisfies WP:N will satisfy WP:NLIST.

The concept of a list for this topic just doesn't have notability, but the overall subject outside of the list aspect does, and those are two different things. That's why I mentioned in keep !votes such as yours that if I was closing instead of deciding to comment, your comments would have weighed against a straight keep because of that confounding in justification between list notability and just regular topic notability. That's also why I came here to suggest swapping the redirect targets as a solution instead of just another no-consensus close. We do article name changes, redirects, merges, etc. at AfD all the time, and that actually would help take care of the list notability issue that keeps bringing this back to AfD. KoA (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA: Sorry if I misunderstood your concern. I would direct you to WP:LISTN which says "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. ...notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Clearly, changing the name makes no difference with regards to determining notablity. And, if the topic is notable, so is its related list. Rublamb (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeatedly mentioned issues with WP:NLIST as why this keeps coming back to AfD, so I'm very familiar with the guideline I've been discussing the whole time. As I already said repeatedly, this is not a notable list topic per that very guideline, but the general topic is. There aren't sets of lists establishing notability beyond the general topic discussion. What you're suggesting would be similar coming to a Bombay cat AfD and saying cats are notable, so keep. List topics don't automatically WP:INHERIT notability from the general topic, it's the focus on lists in sources that does that here. List topics are a subset of a general topic when lists within become notable, which is why NLIST discusses "list topics" and assessing those groupings as a whole.

Much of what you're bring up such as the entirety of lists in sources isn't at issue here and is not addressing the central question for this AfD on notability of the list topic at hand. The question for this AfD is centered on the notability of lists in this subject, not the broader subject of dog attacks. If people can't handle that distinction, us outside editors aren't going to be able to help much in cutting through the issue that's clearly not going away.

At the end of the day, just having the article move to dealing with the subject in prose alleviates the NLIST issues that continually bring this to AfD, and it also allows for WP:NOTEWORTHY instances or case studies to be discussed in the article or even put in tables as opposed to an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that has been a concern here too. The list question here is just causing too many WP:PAG issues that are much easier to deal with if the article is allowed to be a general article instead of a list. KoA (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As to the suggestion to merge into Fatal dog attacks in the United States, please note that the page was previously named that, and used to have a significant amount of non-list prose content. The article was systematically stripped of non-list content and finally renamed to "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" when all but the barest lead prose had been removed. To illustrate: a long discussion in April 2019 discussed breaking up the article into multiple smaller subjects or related subjects; an edit on September 25, 2019 removed all the studies; an edit on October 31, 2019 removed prose content and nineteen sources; a December 2019 discussion found consensus to rename; and on January 13, 2020‎ it was renamed to be List of fatal dog attacks in the United States.

Thus, the original single article—this article—had been fractured into multiple articles including "Fatal dog attacks", "List of fatal dog attacks", and several country break out articles.

The key point is that this article used to have prose information that gave it weight and the stamp of approval for standalone notability. Due to size constraints—and the subsequent splitting/fracturing—it should maintain its notability due to its alliance with the other articles in the series, if not simply because it fulfills the informational purpose of lists as mentioned in NLIST. NLIST discusses creating stand-alone lists but does not address lists when they are split—in this case with the prose content being moved elsewhere, leaving the list standing alone.

If you want to "merge" something, then put some of the USA prose content back into "List of fatal dog attacks in the United States" from "Fatal dog attacks", whether it remains named "List of" or not. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add some guideline support, WP:SUMMARY says, "Long stand-alone lists may be split alphanumerically or chronologically or in another way that simplifies maintenance without regard to individual notability of the subsections." -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of sources (and common sense) supporting WP:NLIST. Re WP:NOTNEWS, the topic "fatal dog attacks in the US" has enduring notability, though each one of these attacks do not. Similarly, WP:ROUTINE is about the notability of individual events, and no one is arguing any of these attacks have notability. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is about putting things in context, and this article does a great job of putting the list of dog attacks in context with high-quality sources. --Jfhutson (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Dog bites man isn't news. Man bites dog IS news. Dog kills person is also news.

If I want to know about attacks by animals, where will I find it in Wikipedia? Statistics just tell me that 30 to 50 people are killed each year. I want more than that. The last paragraph of fatal dog attacks says "The author also rues the lack of "comprehensive surveillance" of dog bite related fatalities."

I'm not going to quote MOS, but on this one I am an inclusionist. Where else, other than Wikipedia, will researchers go for information about dog attacks? A list, with sources, is sufficient. The only discussion should be which article is appropriate for that information. Humpster (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>If I want to know about attacks by animals, where will I find it in Wikipedia

Dog bite.

>Where else, other than Wikipedia, will researchers go for information about dog attacks?

Hopefully literally anywhere else - Wikipedia is a horrible place for researchers to find information, especially in long indiscriminate lists that have been targetted by a third party activist group. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did politics play a role in your nominating this article? An IP made some political commentary above, and it is odd that that this article has been to AfD five times. Geogene (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know about the existence of said group until after the notice was added to it. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is very odd. It seems that someone really wants to suppress this kind of data. The only organization I can think that would want to do that would be Animal Farm Foundation or its subsidiary the National Canine Research Council. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, if you truely think I have some connection to a lobbyist group then you should be bringing it up in the appropriate channels. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Golinko, Arslanian & Williams 2016.
^ O'Brien et al. 2015.
^ Bini et al. 2011.
^ Kaye, Belz & Kirschner 2009.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced, and there is established notability for these types of articles - see List of mass shootings in the United States. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just saw that someone attempts to get this article removed from Wikipedia. This is a comprehensive list of all serious incidents in human/dog interactions in the US and lists the breeds involved. It is well documented and referenced, so there is no justifiable reason to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wanderwonders (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC) — Wanderwonders (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - The phenomenon of fatal dog attacks is a notable subject... which is why we already have a whole article on that subject. That article includes a large section on the US that covers this subject better than this article does, without the indiscriminate content and low quality sources. The meat of this page is a thoroughly indiscriminate list of non-notable incidents involving non-notable people sourced to news stories of individual incidents, created and predominantly written by a couple WP:SPAs focused on anti-pitbull advocacy and dog attacks. The list doesn't merit a separate article from the notable topic per WP:NOPAGE, and more importantly this is a WP:NOT issue. We're indiscriminately hosting a massive list that effectively reproduces the lists available on advocacy websites. Any argument based just on notability isn't addressing the issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since others have also said this article is flawed because of editor bias, I decided to take a look as a neutral editor who does a lot of work with lists. Hidden in the weeds, there were many notable fatalities, meaning they had national/out-of-local area coverage or were included in major newspapers or magazines. A challenge is a lack of guidelines for inclusion in the list. I have proposal guidelines on the article's TalkPage which is pending adoption. For the sake of the AfD discussion, I went ahead and made the first pass at removing fatalities that only had local coverage. I believe this addresses most of your concerns. I also did a review of the NYT archives, adding some content from the 19th and 20th centuries, both for balance and to show that sources exist to continue expanding the article. Rublamb (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This misses the point. Wikipedia has an awful lot of editors focused on dog attacks and pitbulls in particular. The design of a page which covers not just the subject of fatal dog attacks but attempts to include as many entries as possible is where the NPOV exists. Whether we call it a WP:POVFORK or just bending our typical treatment of lists to accommodate an exhaustive list of local events (rather than notable examples) is an NPOV problem. That it comes from editors with a clear POV and single focus on this project is simply unsurprising rather than a cause to delete in its own right. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that's accurate re "our typical treatment of lists." We have lists of notable things, and we have lists of things whether notable or not with clear inclusion criteria. I don't know how to prove it without being accused of OTHERSTUFF, but here are some examples: Category:Lists of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States by year, Category:Lists of people executed in the United States, Category:Lists of libraries in the United States. -- JFHutson (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that it lists breed. Which attracts the advocates. I doubt there would be much interest updating that list if breed was not included. If people want to keep a list, a suggestion would be to remove the breed from the list. There are so many studies out there that show breed is not reliably determined by looks, so I don't see a reasonable argument for keeping breed listed. News are more than reliable in reporting incidents, but they shouldn't be relied upon reporting the breed, unless a genetic test was performed, which is in very rare instances. Unbiased6969 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The user Rhododentrites thinks this list reproduces the lists available on advocacy websites. I strongly disagree.

- On Wikipedia everyone can add a fatality, so we can add fatalities those websites might leave out. Since there are many different editors, one must try to be accurate and avoid biased writing. That is a good thing and distinguishes this list from those websites. No one complained about me adding the Labrador who was involved in the death of a cyclist who drove into the dog. (List of fatal dog attacks in Germany)

-I find the point of notability interesting. Because in countries with very few fatal dog attacks, every attack logically leads to debates. Austria has very strict animal welfare rules and dog laws, there are hardly any fatal incidents involving humans. Interestingly, findings from international studies are also reflected in Austria, despite the fact that fatal attacks are so rare. More than 70% of severe injuries and deaths are caused by Rottweilers and Pit bull type dogs, closely followed by German Shepherds. The lists reflect the statistics and are, in my opinion, not biased. Other factors like the age of the victims and the circumstances are also similar and interesting to compare with other countries.

-The USA has a shockingly high number of fatal dog attacks, so a selection might makes sense (I don't know what the rules are and how long a article is allowed to be), but it does have some pitfalls. Some cases get more coverage (if the victim is a child etc. or the attack resulted in extreme injuries). I would prefer to add every case available if this is possible. Even the strange cases where a dog was involved and did nothing wrong. (Like List of unusual death)

- Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs. No matter the news coverage, circumstances or dog type etc. There are so much more dog attacks that were nearly fatal, so a fatal one is notable in my opinion.

- If we decide to only add fatalities with national or even international coverage we have to check every fatality, because I tend to add local newspapers as a source if possible, which does not mean there was no national or international coverage (since I find some cases from the US in German newspapers).

- I think information researchers are looking for includes: age, sex, type of injury, state, county, legal situation, convictions, circumstances, dog type, animal welfare (stray dogs, dog fighting issues). It would be good to focus on getting all that information in, instead of hyperfocusing on the "dog type" and delete delete delete. Information about the dog breed or type can be important but it is only one factor. It does not have to be perfect either, because if I look at cases I do further research anyway. Wikigrund (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(yet another WP:SPA). To some of the content: casting an even wider net than the advocacy sites is not a good thing, and regarding Maybe criteria for notability of the cases and attacks should be that they were fatal in the end and involved dogs - notability on Wikipedia means WP:N. It's typically about having enough coverage for a wide audience and over a period of time for a Wikipedia article. Most lists on Wikipedia that constitute lists of examples are lists of notable examples. Some lists aim to be exhaustive (discographies, lists of presidents of a particular country, lists of cars made by Audi, etc.). Fatal dog attacks is not one such list where I think we should aim to be exhaustive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response: My point exactly. This was my quick pass of trimming the content to notable attacks, since reverted. Rublamb (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that Rhododendrites' mention of WP:NOPAGE really does drive home the WP:PAG argument for at least not keeping a list page. Above in my !vote I mentioned essentially just redirecting/merging to fatal dog attacks or having a US article specifically, especially in terms of Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article. . . A list isn't needed for this topic and has only been causing problems with the tensions it causes with WP:NLIST. Instead, let secondary sources do the broad-level summarizing for us in a regular article where we aren't forced into having a list, but still have the option for a focused one if needed in that article.

At the end of the day, WP:CONSENSUS isn't a majority vote, but what best addresses our WP:PAG. Most keep votes aren't addressing the underlying policy or guideline issues, often just declaring the topic is notable while confounding the actual topics between list notability and general topic notability. There are solutions being proposed whether it's in the merge/redirect or delete comments, but closing this as keep or no consensus would mean the underlying problems would still remain and just end up back here at a later date. It does look like these AfDs get derailed by WP:ISNOT violations claiming we need to provide this data for researchers, etc. too. This is going to be a mess for a closer to sort through and weight comments, but this does seem like a case where if notability of the list topic is not established after this many AfDs, that's something the closer should be weighing in on. KoA (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the key guideline here is NLIST, and that that has already been addressed above. I agree that the subject is notable enough to have a standalone article at Fatal dog attacks in the United States, however, creating that article does not require a merge or deletion of this list article. Arguing that this article should be deleted without consensus just because some people keep nominating it, and are perhaps likely to nominate it again, is not in at all in accordance with the PAGs that this post repeatedly appeals to. If anything, continuing to propose deletion for an article that has been to AfD four times already is disruptive behavior that should not be encouraged. As for "researchers", the entire point of Wikipedia is to spread free knowledge. Geogene (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the responses agreeing to merge or delete, this is not disruptive behavior. Remember that the first AfD was no consensus and the 2014 version was delete. Also, the point of Wikipedia is to spread reliable knowledge, not any knowledge. This is why we have WP:RSN, to discuss what is and isn't a reliable source. Conyo14 (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the content in this article is reliably sourced. If you dispute that, then the correct procedure to remedy that is on the article's talk page, not an AfD. Watching this AfD devolve into complaints about other editors allegedly being SPAs and, really, trying to bring any policy into it other than NLIST shows that there is no coherent delete argument here. Geogene (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to strongarm the framing of discussion into the only guideline you think should apply, as though we don't routinely delete for a variety of other guideline-based reasons (not to mention policy-based reasons), and pointing fingers about "coherence" and "devolving" discussion because it doesn't meet your own personal framing is not helpful. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Geogene's comments and can see no point in removing useful data, especially when there are similar lists for fatal shark attacks, fatal bear attacks, fatal snake bites, and for mass shootings. Veritas Aeterna (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two AfDs of the main page were closed with no consensus and the 2010 was closed with keep.

Quote: "The result was keep. The overall concept of humans being killed by dogs is notable, the individual entries on the list of course need to be properly sourced but do not need to be notable in and of themselves."

I do agree with the user Geogene that nominating again and again and again is disruptive behavior. The user who made the AfD did'nt even bother to bring some of the solveable issues up on the talk page. Instead they went straight for AfD because: "[..] I want to see what the overall consensus is this time around for the list." Wikigrund (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the first RfD was "keep." Some folks seem unable to accept that so they return every few years to see if they can enough votes to delete it. I say, "votes" because the arguments haven't changed much in 14 years. Astro$01 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More discussion on whether clearer selection criteria would ameliorate the concerns about INDISCRIMINATE and NOTNEWS would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the proposed selection criteria by Rublamb would alleviate most of my concerns, currently the discussion about that is ongoing on the article talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just responding after the relist comment, but WP:LISTN issues that keep bringing this back to AfD are not due to list selection criteria, so that would not address the underlying issue of notability of the list topic. Either we fix the problem by doing away with the list article format and going to a "normal" article or else the issues persist and we're back here again after some time to try to tackle the underlying issues yet again. KoA (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention. There seems to be agreement that the topic is notable. The lede provides sources that discuss the topic in general and summarizes fatal attacks. The list follows with notable examples with significant coverage. Thus, topic is notable, the group is notable, and the citted examples are notable. So how does this fail WP:LISTN? Rublamb (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you indent, that lets us know it's a response. No need for boldtext. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the WP:LISTN issues that you mention. And that's the underlying problem here that editors are not engaging with the LISTN issues and just keep broadly insisting the topic is notable. Denialism about that is not helpful here if any of us outside editors are going to be helpful in addressing the underlying problems at the article. That's already been addressed above though ad nauseum, so please be mindful of WP:BADGERING at this point.

Discussions like these are WP:NOTAVOTE when it comes to measuring consensus. When issues like this are found and keep !votes just insist it's notable (or won't differentiate the differences between general notability and lists), those comments are typically weighed very little when it comes to assessing WP:CONSENSUS. It's usually those actively working to fix the underlying issues this doesn't end up back at AfD yet again, not tangents like the IP comments just pasted below. KoA (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that other editors won't engage on WP:LISTN issues; it is that we disagree that there is a WP:LISTN issue in the first place.

It seems to me the "there is no issue" argument is based on a plain reading of the WP:LISTN criteria, namely that the topic of fatal dog attacks "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."

The list introduction includes citations on the topic from independent, reliable sources, which satisfies the WP:LISTN criteria. QED. Astro$01 (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following were posted to the talk page. I am reposting here because it appears these editors meant to participate in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rublamb (talk • contribs)

The public has a right to these statistics and information which are based in fact. It shouldn’t be removed or obscured because of someone’s beliefs, views, opinions or sensitivities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B16B:D5DE:BD4D:69A6:30A1:FD95 (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is most likely a pit bull fanatic who wants to have this useful article deleted. Please keep it up! 2603:6011:8CF0:5CF0:C19D:B680:8D41:66 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.

This comprehensive compilation should not be erased from public access. I just saw that someone attempts to get this article removed from Wikipedia.This is a comprehensive list of all serious incidents in human/dog interactions in the US and lists the breeds involved. It is well documented and referenced, so there is no justifiable reason to remove it. Wanderwonders (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.

Keep We need to keep factual data. 198.52.236.193 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.

Keep it I see no reason to remove an article that is listing facts without any sensationalism. This is useful information to those looking into owning a potentially dangerous dog breed or to those needing statistics to create local laws that ban ownership of such breeds 2603:6011:8CF0:5CF0:C19D:B680:8D41:66 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note User has no edits outside of this deletion discussion.

These are all very textbook arugments to avoid in deletion discussions or flat out WP:ISNOT policy violations, but it does illustrate the kind of "padding" I was seeing in the AfD back when I was debating on closing the AfD vs. looking for alternative solutions. KoA (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The responses above are exactly why my call for deletion was and is based primarily on WP:NOR. If this is supposed to be used as raw data about the subject— and these responses make clear that plenty will read it that way— readers should be getting it from reputable researchers with a published methodology, not a range of random WP authors of unknown ability, interest, and intent. This is a collection of primary data, and we should be reporting on the analysis of it, or rather, on an analysis of data collected by actual statisticians and social analysts. Mangoe (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument could be made about a great deal of Wikipedia--that it consists of random facts pulled together by various editors of unknown ability, interest, and intent. We have to trust the system of editors reviewing and monitoring other editors and remember that all are welcome to participate. I have issues with the suggestion that we should delete content to control how someone might use it. That really goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As it currently stands, this article provides a general historical overview of notable fatal dog attacks. Its information is from reliable sources, including notable newspapers, magazines, and news outlets. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD says, "While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source..." In addition, WP:PRIMARY says, "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" and "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." Thus, using reliable newspapers and magazines as sources for basic facts (who, what, when, where) is within the scope of allowable use, especially considering that the article's lede uses secondary sources to discuss the importance of the data and the conclusions drawn from the data. Rublamb (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rhododendrites and KoA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Keep but remove breed. There are several studies, some listed here[89][90][91], that have determined breed identification by visual inspection to be unreliable. News report what Animal Control states, and if its known their staff can't reliably determine breed, then the news is just reporting unreliable information too. There really isn't an argument for keeping data on Wikipedia that is already known to be unreliable, so I would say to either delete it, or remove breed from it and keeping a list of incidents with no breed listed. The exception, would be where DNA tests were done, but those are in the minority. This would also detract from users who go there for advocacy on either side. Removing inaccurate information and reducing POV is a double-win for Wikipedia. Also will sign myself as an SPA for disclosure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Unbiased6969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If a reliable source, e.g., a newspaper article says the breed is a Great Dane, then a Wikipedia article should be able to say it is a Great Dane. Astro$01 (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context matters when evaluating sources. Not just the source, but to the specific facts and not just the source, per WP:RS. One reasonable mind can argue that, given the context surrounding breed identification reliability, media outlets relying on visual breed identification are reporting on unreliable information. At least one news report disclosed this within their reporting when using breed identification as well.Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the battle here appears to relate to pit bull lovers or haters. As an editor who has no bias in the dog breed issue, I have looked at every included attack and its source. In most of these cases, the source for the breed info appears to be the dog's owner, not animal control. In many cases, forensic work was done on the dog. In other cases, the sources indicate that the breed is unknown. The sources you provide relate to shelter workers, not pet owners or even animal control. But that really doesn't matter. As @Astro$01 suggests, the cited sources are considered reliable. Applying the articles you mention to discredit those reliable sources, would be original research, especially since the articles you want to introduce are not about fatal dog attacks or news reporting. Rublamb (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I honestly don't have the time to look at every incident and every source. However, I did do a random sample containing the first 2 attacks in a year going back to 2005. That is when the genome mapping of dogs was complete, so automatically, pre-2005 isn't in dispute for DNA analysis. Of the ones inspected, All did not mention DNA testing being performed, in fact it was common for them to just say "identified". Only one reference to DNA was one news stating a disclaimer that its been found that identifying a dog without DNA analysis is unreliable, so kudos for responsible journalism there. Of the attacks, about 22/24 of the attacks the owner of the attack was known, but few eluded to the family identifying the breed. Mainly a neighbor giving a description, firefighter, or animal services. Given the unreliability of visual breed identification and the rampant use of it within this article, I really don't see an argument for keeping breed in it, unless its to keep a list of unreliable data.

There is also the issue with this being used for advocacy, can you ensure that the list is not inherently biased given the attention this list draws by advocacy groups? There is an incentive to add "pit bulls" to the list, but not much other dog attacks by editors interested in this wiki article. For example, just this last year there has already been a dog attack[92] omitted from this article, and it just so happens to not be identified as a "pit bull". However, there has not been one dog attack labeled as a "pit bull" omitted from this list. This page is unreliable in so many ways I honestly feel like just removing it now. A incomplete list, at best, gives readers an unreliable picture. At worst, it serves a propaganda for editors with an agenda.Unbiased6969 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table says "dog type" and not "dog breed confirmed by DNA analysis". The linked Wikipedia articles clearly explain what a Husky type is, for example, and that breeds and crossbreeds are included. It is also explained in the article "Pitt bull" which is always linked in every fatality. The dog type column can also contain a description such as stray dog, guard dog, mixed breed, unknown or large dog if no more information is known.

Even people with little knowledge of dogs can distinguish between these dog types. Wikigrund (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion may be that people with little knowledge of dogs can. However, it runs counter to the many studies that exist that show that even with knowledge of dogs cannot reliably determine a breed. Do you have a study to back up your beliefs, if so I am a nerd for this topic and would appreciate reading it. Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Montserrat Championship. Closing as redirect to Montserrat Championship. History is preserved under redirect, which can be used for merge or expansion, if required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Montserrat Police Force FC[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No real indication that this is a notable team. The League they played in was short lived and no longer active. The only found references was a listing of previous champions of the now defunct Montserrat Championship. I can't see this passing WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~List of football clubs in Montserrat~~ Montserrat Championship per nom. Fails GNG based on very limited SOGCOV. However, as a club who won six championships it its country's top flight league, it is a very reasonable search term, so I am strongly opposed to deletion. Frank Anchor 01:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: changed target as my originally proposed target is undergoing its own AFD. Frank Anchor 19:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Royal Montserrat Police Service. Again there was no thought to appropriate locations, this club is part of the police service which actually has a page on wikipedia about them. So why would anyone want to redirect anywhere else. If someone else says that the club is not mentioned there and so shouldn't be redirected, well it would be mentioned if merged! This should be pretty straight forward to fix. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am fine with this as a redirect/merge option as well, though I believe a football-specific target is most appropriate. Frank Anchor 13:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

I see no evidence that the team "is part of the police service" AusLondonder (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it does fail WP:SIGCOV standards, we cannot expect the Montserratian football system to receive meaningful, reliable coverage in mainstream media sources. This is historically the best football club in Montserrat. If we delete this article, we are jumping deeper and deeper into WP:BIAS by maintaining impossible standards for leagues (and players) from developing countries, effectively claiming that they are "unimportant." We can use the Swedish eighth division AfD as an example of this WP:BIAS. Anwegmann (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is about a specific team, not an entire league. The (defunct) league is covered at Montserrat Championship although it itself is unfortunately lacking sources. Montserrat is not a "developing country" it's a small British territory. I don't agree that very small teams without a single reliable source should be kept just because they're from an autonomous territory rather than say a small town of 4000 people. AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A British territory that is self-governing, more than 4,000 miles away from Great Britain, was nearly annihilated by a volcano 30 years ago, and has a GDP of less than half that of Great Britain. It is by all measures a representative of the global south and a small island developing state according to the UN. I appreciate the fact that the league article exists, but this team is as notable a team as this league has. Anwegmann (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in secondary sources. Per WP:NTEAM no sports team is exempt from notability requirements irrespective of the size of the territory they are from. A redirect to List of football clubs in Montserrat is inappropriate because that list is completely unsourced, and is at least six years out of date. It should also be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect – Per @Govvy. Svartner (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football clubs in Montserrat. AusLondonder (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montserrat Championship - possible search term, and more useful target than the police. Giant Snowman 09:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montserrat Championship as preferred WP:ATD. ETA: I'm OK with keep too but haven't done my own notability assessment to support such a !vote. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Five-time winners of the Montserrat league, which is FIFA affiliated. I can't find much online about them but their championships were even reported (in list format) in the New York Times. It's probable there are offline sources written about them, and I don't see how deleting this improves the encyclopaedia - we just really need someone from Montserrat to help save it. SportingFlyer T·C 20:16, 16 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!} 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern cone music[edit]

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

WP:OR + fails WP:GNG. Virtually WP:UNSOURCED except 1 dead link since creation in 2008. (Edit: the archived link only mentions Argentina and provides no WP:SIGCOV.) It amounts to little more than Music of Argentina + Music of Chile + Music of Uruguay, with every example being country-specific rather than cross-border between the 3 countries. WP:BEFORE done: no single book on Google Books mentions it. NLeeuw (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and South America. NLeeuw (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 12:33, 12 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 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English grammars and grammarians[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY/WP:NLIST. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the concerns regarding the deletion nomination of the "List of English Grammars and Grammarians" under the grounds of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NLIST. Here are several reasons why this article should be retained:

Educational and Historical Value: This list provides significant educational and historical insights into the development of English grammar and grammars. Each entry represents an essential piece of the historical evolution of the English language and its teaching. This makes the list a valuable resource for students, educators, and researchers.
Links to Biographical Articles: Many entries are linked to existing Wikipedia articles about notable grammarians, enhancing the list's value by providing context and further reading. These links show the list’s role in connecting and organizing information within Wikipedia, enriching users' learning experiences.
Support for Broader Articles: The list is linked from the "History of English Grammars" article, serving as a resource that supports broader discussions about the subject. This interconnection helps other articles to reference a centralized resource, maintaining focus and avoiding redundancy.
Consistency with Wikipedia’s Guidelines: While Wikipedia is not a directory, it values lists that provide educational content and context. This list offers a curated overview of significant works and authors in the field of English grammar, making it more than just a simple enumeration.
Potential for Expansion and Improvement: Rather than deletion, this list could be improved by adding secondary sources that discuss the impact and historical importance of the works and authors listed. Enhancements could include more detailed descriptions and historical contexts.

--Brett (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the list comes from here. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My concern is that the lead states This list comprises significant works and figures in the study of English grammar and rhetoric, ranging from early comprehensive guides to modern analytical texts. The authors listed have contributed foundational texts that have shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding in English-speaking academies and beyond. However, there are no sources to support that any given entry is a significant work or figure, or that those listed are considered foundational texts, or that any given entry has "shaped teaching practices and linguistic understanding". The list contains non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary such as Not worth a pin, A miserable jumble, and This is a curious work, and remarkably well-written. Several entries are noted for plagiarism, so why are they included? Rather than being carefully curated, this appears to be a data dump of 18th and 19th century grammar books. Schazjmd (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The non-neutral, unsourced, and unattributed commentary derives from the original work from which the text is copied, The Grammar of English Grammars by Goold Brown (wikisource). IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a list copied indiscriminately from an antiquated book. Reproducing a public domain catalog could serve as a prime example for WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The absence of modern contextualization and the preponderance of entries lacking wikilinks causes it to fail WP:NLIST by not fulfilling "informational, naviation, or development purposes". Schazjmd (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Schazjmd. The same issue has come up with a handful of redirects derived from titles and the index of the Catholic Encyclopedia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:36, 15 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!} 00:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Tanwani[edit]

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

Living person, claiming to hold a world record of degrees, but world recodmaking organizing is... not exactly reputable, I don't see a strong case for this being a notable individual. Sadads (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 00:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the press falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable for notability. Bylines of "Brand Media" and "HT BRand Studio" are clearly paid-for promotional pieces.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see notability here, even with 11 degrees. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above lacks notability.Tame Rhino (talk) 05:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All these sources are Sponsored and I think these are published to create Wikipedia article. Grabup (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails notability. I think this is publicity stunt. RangersRus (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on WP:PROF criteria, definitely no pass. Investigated GNG based on "most degrees" but even the records page does not state that this is the case (11 degrees, but not most) and as Sadads notes, the notability of the awarding organization is quite suspect in itself. I don't see anything else passing. I'm not sure it's a publicity stunt -- earning 11 degrees is objectively pretty amazing and I could understand a writer or the subject thinking it would qualify for notability by someone who did not know WP's guidelines. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fail GNG. Entirely promotional material. Fake record reference book award. Non-notable.RationalPuff (talk) 22:44, 17 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.