The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Gómez (footballer, born 1967)[edit]

Francisco Gómez (footballer, born 1967) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested BLAR. Article created by a blocked sockpupeteer evading a salting of Francisco Javier Gómez. Cites no sources containing significant coverage. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After some searching, I see nothing amounting to significant coverage. Can't view the deleted old page, but going by what Pppery is saying, I doubt it had anything extra to offer. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 1995–96 Tigres UANL season where he is mentioned numerous times. Geschichte (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes GNG. See 1, 2, 3 amongst others @GiantSnowman:.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources 1 and 2 appear to be the same? Coverage is brief. GiantSnowman 17:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources mentioned as SIGCOV above are interviews or summaries of what he said in interviews, there is no secondary analysis. Fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The keyword "Francisco Gómez" on Google finds other men with the same name instead of this Mexican soccer player, failing WP:V too. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:24, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Philippines[edit]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are made of entirely of announcments, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Philippines. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no prejudice for recreation later on. I originally created this article as a spin off of Broadcasting of sports events but the article has devolved into a list of every sports events broadcast in the country without discussing actual contracts. The parent article has an ugly ((globalize)) template and could use help for countries which are not dominated by Caucasians. I'd probably do that later on as my PC is busted. The Philippines has a rich history of this dating back to the 1950s with the broadcast of NCAA basketball championships (Philippines) and even had court cases on who should broadcast the UAAP on the turn of the century. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already nominated in an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Howard; as with many WP:TV Fliipino articles he had good intentions but nobody has brought any sources (six of them here), and it's as usual a complete free-for-all of poor overall organization and especially for the basketball section which gets down to semi-pro junior leagues only the gamblers and family are watching, a complete failure to understand that a list article should be a list, not a compilation of 'network fan drama'. Nate • (chatter) 01:31, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Dominican Republic[edit]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Dominican Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Dominican Republic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. TH1980 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been nominated at an AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE and subsequently fails the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 04:02, 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!} 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nylon Pink[edit]

Nylon Pink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources on page do not appear to be reliable (except maybe LA Weekly, though it is a blog), and I couldn't find any other coverage aside from this very brief AllMusic bio. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Most sources are now unavailable, and the band's notability is completely questionable. Svartner (talk) 05:31, 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 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilisa Kaganovskaia[edit]

Vasilisa Kaganovskaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; any medal placements are at the junior level. PROD was removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 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, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSKATE, as far as I can tell. Halfadaniel (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. The "Grand Prix" is not a senior-level national championship. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 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!} 22:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimukhi Baavdi[edit]

Trimukhi Baavdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 13:31, 1 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!} 23:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:RS. It's a hole in the ground. There's no allegation that this well is anything more than one of hundreds of thousands of wells, even if someone famous paid for it to be dug. There are no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 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. ✗plicit 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Som River[edit]

Som River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NGEO, no reliable sources. Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx?contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 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 00:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sipu River[edit]

Sipu River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NGEO, no reliable sources. Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx?contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sohom (talk) 07:31, 1 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!} 23:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 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 00:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Montenegro[edit]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, no source whatsoever. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Montenegro. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - No merit under WP:NLIST BrigadierG (talk) 10:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. Fails the criteria set by WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 12:07, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen Golf Variant[edit]

Volkswagen Golf Variant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Model isn't notable in its own right to warrant an article, Each Golf article has a Variant section (and and none of the Golf articles even mentions this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Volkswagen_Golf_Variant), It would be like creating Volkswagen Golf Cariolet or Volkswagen Golf 3-door etc if that makes sense, no evidence of any notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As noted in nom, discussion of variants belongs in individual articles; we don't need a separate article to aggregate those variants. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just a bodystyle of the Golf, doesn't really even need a redirect. 100% duplicate material and nothing that doesn't fit better in the generational Golf entries.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I didn’t even know this article existed. Best to redirect it to the Volkswagen Golf article.  750h+ | Talk  03:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• By that logic we should also create and redirect Ford Escort (Europe) estate and Toyota Camry estate to their respective models? This model wasn't notable for anything so therefore I see no reason why a redirect needs to exist?.... –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no need for a redirect, or we would set ourselves up for redirects for every single bodystyle ever created of every car out there.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:25, 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. Consensus to delete for non-notability. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guarana (energy drink)[edit]

Guarana (energy drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Admittedly, the name doesn't make searching the easiest, but I haven't found any significant coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Serbia. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per lack of WP:V. Svartner (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a free web host for businesses to profit from a United States tax-exempt charity. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blisk (web browser)[edit]

Blisk (web browser) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As far as I can tell, the only notable source for this is Mashable. Hence, it currently fails WP:GNG. I did a quick search and didn't really find any sources more notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: A lot of the sources I found were press releases or overly promotional, but with the reviews from Mashable, Fossbytes and Softpedia, (both a little questionable but at least they have actual authors and ratings), and coverage of the data breach in Zdnet I think it can be kept. Weak keep because it only got coverage when it released and when it had a data breach and nothing really in between or after. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @StreetcarEnjoyer On 2 December 2023‎ the user Lotje has removed almost the whole article with lots of sources. I'm asking to revert the majority of changes. The software works and gets released constantly. Let's discuss on how to rewrite the features and press releases. Can you help with this? And85rew (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I am against including that content. The article does not need "features and press releases". The content that was removed is contrary to policy. I will remove it again if it's readded. If you have specific additions in mind, it's best to suggest them on the talk page. And if you have a conflict of interest, please disclose it. —Alalch E. 09:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please explain why features are not needed? The features describe the software. The article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome names the key features (User interface, Built-in tools, Desktop shortcuts and apps, Extensions, Speed, Security, Privacy). Why cannot this article list the features of the software? And85rew (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article will never be the way it used to be. The misuse of Wikipedia at this page has been put to an end. It lasted for a while, but that time has come and gone. Disclose your conflict of interest. See the edit history of the article where the reasons for removal are stated in the edit summaries. —Alalch E. 09:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The experienced editor Alalch E. is correct here. The article in its prior status was exclusively cited to primary sources and violated the Wikipedia guidelines of not being a blatant advertisement. Features listed in other web browser pages like Google Chrome and Firefox are (mostly) cited to independent, reliable sources, have enough coverage in independent sources, and were given by other editors who generally do not have a conflict of interest. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In all likelihood, I find the initial flurry of coverage to be almost certainly based substantially or entirely on press kit, i.e. WP:CHURNALISM. The Fossbytes article is especially obvious, I mean hell, that second last sentence: You can go ahead and try our Blisk for Windows right now. Did they even bother paraphrasing the email they got before publishing it? The state of available sourcing is unacceptable, it fails independence requirements. Other, more exhaustive software directories (like, I don't know, Softpedia, where it's already at) may be an appropriate home for this, but Wikipedia is not that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'd like to change my vote. Frankly the sourcing available is bad and sourcing a web browser entirely to "it was released and had a data breach once" is not a good idea. All the sources not about the data breach do sound like press release churnalism, even the Mashable article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:49, 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 merge‎ to Carrot cake. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot cake cookie[edit]

Carrot cake cookie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable cookie that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. Should be merged into Carrot cake#UK and US if not deleted outright. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have bookmarked scores of cookies I'd like to try making. This one isn't in it, but it appears to be a prime example of something that's just an inspired recipe with many variations, not a notable dish that's cohesively described outside of a cookbook writer's introduction. This could be a sentence in Carrot cake. Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Carrot cake and redirect, at least for now. It's possible this one could get there -- oreo makes a version, subway and aldis have a version, I've added that content+refs. Gourmet did something in 2004, but on a quick search I'm not finding it, and it was not unlikely it was a simple recipe, but if anyone can figure out their archives, ping me to a link and I'll add. Commercial uptake is probably a promising sign for this cookie's notability, so it would be good to have that info at carrot cake for future consideration. Valereee (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Carrot cake, which presently has no mention other than a link in its See also section. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested, as a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 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. Also, "Checking notability" is not a deletion rationale. Please do not bring articles to an AFD if you just want to check them out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Gelos[edit]

Gaston Gelos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Checking notability. Dejaqo (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Germany, Economics and Uruguay. Dejaqo (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Following a review of the article and its sources, I made some changes. With sources like [1], [2] an other citations in that, notability can be clearly demonstrated. Also he is frequently quoted by major financial media outlets including Bloomberg, CNBC, and the Financial Times, as an economist. Southati (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looking on GS under both RG Gelos and Gaston Gelos seems sufficiently well cited for a pass of WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep In addition to WP:Prof, clearly passes WP:GNG. Gedaali (talk) 20:17, 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!} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 CD Alcoyano season[edit]

2023–24 CD Alcoyano season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD. Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG, not being regularly maintained Crowsus (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Spain. Crowsus (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. A single file summarizing the CD Alcoyano seasons is enough. Svartner (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I respect that semi-pro seasons can sometimes be notable but I'm struggling to see how this would be one of the rare few. As above, a line or two about the season at CD Alcoyano would be more than sufficient. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a potentially viable article, but does not currently pass GNG on its face. Can be draftified and improved if anyone wants to. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jerusalem unrest[edit]

2024 Jerusalem unrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news...whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Per WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Israel, and Palestine. AusLondonder (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was concern something might happen this year with the war, but nothing significant actually happened in Jerusalem. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Improper WP:SYNTH of 3 non-notable events. Marokwitz (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Rupples (talk) 19:05, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shakira tribute albums[edit]

List of Shakira tribute albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:LISTN: one album listed has a review in Allmusic, everything else is covered only by streaming services, catalog listings, and eBay listings. Since the prose is mostly WP:OR, I don't see anything worth merging. hinnk (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:LISTN as this is not a grouping discussed in reliable sources, none of these albums are particularly notable, and this comes off as WP:OR. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above: If more releases were notable then I would still recommend converting to Category:Shakira tribute albums, but there's nothing here worth keeping anyway. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The policy-based arguments by everyone above are correct. Also note that upon inspecting some of the listings, most of these "tribute" albums are made up of cover versions recorded by unknown studio musicians and remixes by equally unknown DJs. Just about all of them are attempts by shysters to sponge money off a famous person's success, and all failed to generate notice. That same notice is required for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. >>> Extorc.talk 18:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. List of non-notable albums. OK for a fan site. Needs sources comparing the albums to satisfy the notability criteria for lists. Rupples (talk) 19:20, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anuradha Bhattacharyya[edit]

Anuradha Bhattacharyya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Main claim to fame in lede appears to be winning an Chandigarh Sahitya Akademi, but that's not supported by the refs (one ref just mentions that she was selected to give away the award), and her name is not mentioned anywhere here (in the English or Hindi sections, at least). I don't see WP:SIGCOV and any other reliable sources in the article, just bibiographies and mentions. Was deleted previously by AfD and quickly recreated by the original author soon after. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Poetry, Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can we find published reviews of her novels that aren't tainted by paid placements (WP:NEWSORGINDIA)? If so that could be a clearer path to notability than debating whether the award she won is significant. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  https://edurank.org/uni/jadavpur-university/alumni/

  It says she is among 46 notable alumni based on google search of her name (in spite of being often mispelt as bhattacharya by searchers.

  https://edurank.org/uni/indian-institute-of-technology-kharagpur/alumni/

  It seems to me that no one noticed the recent book Light Inspired. It is the life-story of a notable person named Deep Narayan Nayak. He has recently won a UNESCO medal for social work/educationist. I was intending to give his reference from youtube when the bot disallowed it. After that I received the nomination for deltion notice. What an irony! Atul Bhattacharyya (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. Notability will have to be found under GNG, but I don't see enough strong independent sources yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/chandigarh/honour-for-17-authors-by-csa-52965 Cash prize mentioned. The Chandigarh Sahitya Akademi is the State Award in Literature. Without 'Chandigarh', Sahitya Akademi is the National award.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/sahitya-akademi-honour-for-writers-384418 This was in 2017 for the book One Word, same government body.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190204231321/http://chdpr.gov.in/dashboard/sites/default/files/Commendation%20Certificates%20for%20distinguished%20service.pdf This one is the State Honour from the government presented on the Republic Day of India, state level. For this, a police verification is conducted for eligibility. It is not a small matter to receive this honour in India. Atul Bhattacharyya (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This looks like a paid Job or an intention to promote subject article on wikipedia. I was just taking a look at the external link section and after clicking the twitter link I found out that the subject has already started promoting her wikipedia page by using the twitter link on her bio.

https://twitter.com/AnuradhaAuthor Beside that, subject article fails WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a notable figure, and i also supports the Nominator's views. TheChronikler7 (talk) 06:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to be notable and somewhat vanity article. RationalPuff (talk) 22:35, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine cake[edit]

Clementine cake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite being a good article, not a single source has WP:SIGCOV of this specific cake. The majority of sources are recipes which is fine if they're accompanied by significant coverage and discussion of the dish, but there isn't any. The only shred of notability that I'm seeing comes from being a minor plot in a 2013 film and supposedly being an adaption of an ancient Jewish cake. The sources for this second claim are a personal blog (which isn't a reliable source) and the Encyclopedia of Jewish Food which makes no mention of an orange cake that this article claims Clementine cake was adapted from. We need sources that speak about this cake's notability (not just more recipes) and if that doesn't exist, I believe a selective merge to Fruitcake#United States is the best option. BaduFerreira (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claims about the ancient cake appear to be from the New York Times? Valereee (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch, I missed that. That source is a recipe on the New York Times cooking website and the entirety of discussion of this cake is as follows: "This dessert, loosely based on a Sephardic orange cake, uses whole clementines, peels and all, for a flavor rich in citrus. The cooking time may seem long, but much of it doesn’t require much attention from the baker. And the first step, reducing the fruit, may be done ahead of time." Nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also missed that the recipe is connected to an article. The NYT does that with their food writing: they write an article, and then they put the recipe(s) from that article into separate article/s with the main article attached with a "Featured in" link. Valereee (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't realize that at all. Looking at the broader article shows where that earlier blurb came from: "The star of the feast came last: the Clementine Cake (pictured above). Baked by Dawn Datso, a family friend and professional pastry chef, it didn’t come from the book. But the cultural mash-up involved in its creation made it seem supremely appropriate. Years ago, while living in Malaysia, Ms. Datso was browsing in a library and came across a cookbook with some random recipe for Sephardic orange cake. A big fan of clementines, she eventually adapted the cake to feature them". The only WP:SIGCOV that can be pulled from this source is a person adapted a recipe for Sephardic orange cake by adding clementines and made her friend a cake. The baker (Dawn Datso) is described as a professional pastry chef, but I can't find any information about her. This doesn't show that Clementine cake has any notability. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told twice before this on the talk that not every source used in an article has to represent significant coverage. Other RS can be used to support assertions. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources currently used in this article show significant coverage? There isn't a single source used in this article that has significant coverage of Clementine cake as a notable cake. Three of the sources that you've added (The Guardian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The SF Chronicle) looked good at first, but they're recipes for an Orange & Almond Cake. Also none of them are over WP:100WORDS. BaduFerreira (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Perelman source is quite lengthy. But even the sources you're objecting to for not having enough words -- that's an essay, btw, not policy -- are calling it famous and a classic. They're discussing its ancient roots and that it's a traditional Sephardic passover food. Significant coverage isn't just about wordcount. Sometimes it's about what they're saying and who's saying it. In this case, RS and experts from all over the world are saying it. Valereee (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added several more sources, although frankly I don't think this article needed it. The NYT has covered this cake multiple times. The Guardian has covered it. The San Francisco Chronicle. Claudia Roden has covered it. Nigella Lawson has covered it. Joyce Goldstein. It appears to be a cake that has ancient roots, which is always an indicator of notability. I didn't have to look very hard. Valereee (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This nomination gives me a weird feeling. First sources get removed and when they are restored and expanded on, a nomination follows. The Banner talk 23:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough coverage in the sources found and added by Valeree for a GNG pass. Rupples (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick keep per above. on a side note, the GA should be reassessed tho. I feel the article doesn't quite match the standards mainly due to its brief length. X (talk) 22:58, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I failed to search for results using his nickname. (non-admin closure)‎ JTtheOG (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Porteous[edit]

Bradley Porteous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Crearly fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Not enough sources online to establish notability.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - SIG, COV exists. He has played the highest level of South African domestic cricket. --JP (Talk) 07:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be other WP:GNG passing sourcing in a simple search such as this along with what JP has found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played at a sufficient level, making enough appearances, plus there are sources to satisfy WP:GNG. AA (talk) 10:47, 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!} 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Mariano Alvarez Technical High School[edit]

General Mariano Alvarez Technical High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

the article's topic is unnotable, the aricle contains 0 references, and is only 1 sentence long. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GNews search just turns out a mention. GBooks search just turns out the law for its creation. GSearch turns out only directory and map/location listings. Normally I would prefer a redirect to General Mariano Alvarez but the target article has no Education section. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lenticel. This one doesn't meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:53, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaspa's Journey: The Great Migration[edit]

Jaspa's Journey: The Great Migration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

the article seems to be promotional in nature, with it's only two references being from the publisher of the book, and the other being a website about the book. the articles creator has only only one edit, with it being the creation of this article. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have been unable to find any kind of coverage or reviews on either this book or the series it is a part of, meaning it would appear to fail WP:NBOOK. Even the section for reviews on the official site for the series only lists user reviews from places like Amazon and Goodreads, making me doubt that it got any coverage in reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NBOOK and frankly this article reads very promotional, especially that section about the educational value of the book Claire 26 (talk) 03:58, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Space Machine[edit]

1993 Space Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sourcing is exclusively interviews, with no critical commentary in sight. Metacritic turns up no critic reviews, and searches per WP:BEFORE don't turn up much. It's an interesting subject, but it does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found 3 instances of SIGCOV, in PC Zone, Polygon and Nintendo Life. What might trip people up is that the game was initially called 1993 Shenandoah before being renamed 1993 Space Machine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per zxcvbnm's sources Queen of ♡ | speak 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has sufficient sig coverage. X (talk) 18:57, 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!} 23:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buran Parks[edit]

Buran Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this coverage for winning a club player of the year award. JTtheOG (talk) 18:24, 13 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) 18:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:00, 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!} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volunthai[edit]

Volunthai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am struggling to find any recent information about Volunthai. Their website - volungthai.com - widely quoted in older online pages and previously in their wiki page (until I removed the reference) - points to a 'free hookup' site. The organisation appears to have always been very small. Can't find any associated organisations that I can link it with. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Internet, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It does not appear the organization exists anymore so if suitable sources exists, they will be hard to find. I searched ProQuest for the Washington Post and other sources mentioned in the article but those and others were all first hand accounts so WP:primary or brief mentions. The only source that seemed it might be secondary SIGCOV is ProQuest 308904716, an 26 August 2003 piece by The Bangkok Post titled "Building bridges" but only the abstract is available. S0091 (talk) 16:47, 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 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Gohar[edit]

Abdullah Gohar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Little evidence of NPROF: citation record is wholly inadequate, and student awards don't count for much. There is some human-interest type coverage in conjunction with an ancient whale he was involved in studying, but I think that it is at best a WP:BLP1E, with coverage all around Aug/Sep 2023. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Egypt. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: phd students usually dont have enough of academic notability. maybe merge relevant info into Tutcetus User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also should delete based on WP:NOTRESUME User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "pursuing a Ph.D. ... at Oklahoma State University", so he's not there yet. Maybe some time in the future. Athel cb (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll add a comment here, though I still think it's too soon. In some countries (Chile, for example, which I know far better than I know Egypt) it's not unusual to advance a long way in one's research career, and even acquire an international reputation, well before finishing one's doctorate. Getting a doctorate takes a long time, because unless one comes from a wealthy family one needs to work almost full-time as a university teacher at the same time. I don't know how much, if at all, that applies to Abdullah Gohar. Athel cb (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How notable are the awards listed? Oaktree b (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not very. They are discussed here [3]. One is for "Student fieldwork in vertebrate paleontology", the other "To enable scientists from economically developing nations to present research at the SVP Annual Meeting". Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Athel cb's comments are very important to take into account. (in music, a lot of significant performers get their doctorates much later when they are financially secure enough to take the time off after their careers have already passed a notability stage), but typically the recognition of prior work + recent studies pays off in the form of indepedent coverage, and I'm not seeing it here. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROF - thesis was less than 3 years ago - and WP:TOOSOON applies. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm skeptical of why? What is WP:NPROF if the individual's research has appeared on a notable coverage which i can see through ABC news. I don't know how notable is the award, but it seems to be from a notable academy or institution which meets the policies and guidelines. Though it looks like TOOSOON, do deletion appy here? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:22, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Gervois[edit]

Pierre Gervois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pretty random artist; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: in general sources of WP:YOUTUBE are not notable and usable except under specific criteria. most sources are not independent of author. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PROMO, largely sourced to his university or personal websites. I don't find mention of this person elsewhere online. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The best I could find for a reliable source was a three-sentence mention in a Spokane newspaper. Curiocurio (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NARTIST. YouTube links are highly promotional. Not enough coverage by reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. - Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found one detailed source about the subject:
  1. Sawyer, Matthew Lee (2022). Make It in America: How International Companies and Entrepreneurs Can Successfully Enter and Scale in U.S. Markets. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 55–56. ISBN 978-1-119-88514-6. Retrieved 2024-04-13 – via Google Books.

     The book provides 664 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Pierre Gervois is an artist, author, teacher, and entrepreneur. He grew up in a conservative, traditional French family in Paris. When Pierre told his parents that he wanted to study modern art, they insisted he pursue a more predictable career in business, law, or engineering. He followed their wishes, earning a master's degree in political science and constitutional law at Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. Unknown to them, though, during those years he also created 500 paintings and drawings."

     The book notes: "In addition to his entrepreneurial venture, Pierre rekindled his passion for art. With downtime during the 2020 pandemic, he created a website to show his paintings, drawings, and digital artwork. Within six weeks, he sold five pieces. The website also caught the attention of a New York City art gallery that wanted to exhibit his work."

  If there was one more good source, then Pierre Gervois would meet the notability guideline. The other sources I found were passing mentions or quotes from him in the media.

  Cunard (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because with only one good source, Pierre Gervois does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. I support recreation if a second good reliable source becomes available. Cunard (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Update — the article creator has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Artist did arts. No WP:SIGCOV references, so fails WP:ANYBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: For all the above reasons (notability & banned creator).Southati (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: - Not notable. Fails WP:NARTIST, WP:ANYBIO too & also it is an undisclosed paid editing. Hkkingg (talk) 11:15, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Kärkkäinen[edit]

Mikko Kärkkäinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article on this guy’s company, RELEX Solutions, just got speedily deleted as spam. The article’s author is a suspected paid editor. I think I know where this is headed. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG. I think CharlesBNB should be blocked for undeclared paid editing

Usimite (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PR items used for sourcing. Nothing found otherwise. Being named your schools top alumni isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unfortunately none of the sources in the article provide enough WP:GNG. Just a bunch of press releases, etc. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Businessperson did business things. No WP:SIGCOV; fails WP:ANYBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 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 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bed Kingdom[edit]

Bed Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Pretty random company; article authored by a suspected paid editor. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Reference 6 may be just enough to establish notability, but the other sources are either churnalism or trivial business fluff in the "check out these 50 hot retailers of this week!" style of non-news. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Update — the article creator has been blocked indefinitely for undisclosed paid editing. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacking substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Mentions here and there don't cut it. Also we should have zero tolerance for undisclosed paid editing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Tripathi[edit]

Neeraj Tripathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN too soon. Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Theroadislong (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, announced for election doesn’t make a person notable, same like Kompella Madhavi Latha. Grabup (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Way too soon as currently there are no sources online to establish WP:NPOLITICIAN.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. There are plenty of sources on the internet to cover him. Joshiaditya728 (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then please add them to the article! Theroadislong (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As i understood WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, this candidate of BJP is not notable until he is victorius. TheChronikler7 (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If he wins the elections he’ll get one as per WP:NPOLITICIANAnkkAnkur (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Fails GNG Too soon. RationalPuff (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nomination of a subject into a political party is not notable. Politician is not notable, significant, who has received any great attention to be recorded. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 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. A possible merge target, if applicable, can be discussed on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 20:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French loanwords in Persian[edit]

List of French loanwords in Persian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. PepperBeast (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iran and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the topic of French loan words in Farsi is the subject of scholarship e.g 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm aware that it is, but we're not here due to notability concerns. If we were discussing an article about the French influence on Farsi, I'd vote to keep. The operative issue that this just a word list (a basically unref'd word list) and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Deletion is not cleanup, unless it is so bad it requires WP:TNTing. Curbon7 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, WP:TNT. If someone wants to do some improvement over at Persian vocabulary, that's fine. If someone wants to write an actual article on the influence of French on Persian vocabulary, that's also great. This is not that article; this is not an article. It's literally a list of words. There is nothing to salvage. PepperBeast (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In general, same reasons as Mccapra. This article's intro could be improved, like List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic.

Also, comment, but we've nominated a ton of these type of "Loan words" articles for deletion today.

it seems that we are having a discussion about a large swathe of articles across multiple deletion discussion, and we should instead focus on maybe a broader discussion of these? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Influence of the French language on Farsi and tag as unsourced and needing cleanup. BD2412 T 03:36, 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of abbreviations used on British Empire World War I medals[edit]

Lists of abbreviations used on British Empire World War I medals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This contains potential copyright violations, it is not adequately sourced, it provides more ambiguity than guidance, lack of provenance Keith H99 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Keith H99 (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had some challenges with the nomination, so I may have inadvertently nominated it more than once. That I can tell, it's an article that not been nominated prior to today, and has been generally ignored. The Article is a long list that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, for each and every item. This duplicates content from other sites, or hosts POV on interpretation, and is best consigned to the trash can, as I perceive it. Keith H99 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incorrect information in the article prompted me to take a look at the Silver War Badge article. This needed reworking, which has been done. That article could be corrected, I fail to see that as plausible for this article, hence nomination for deletion. Keith H99 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a single usable reference in this article, to the National Archives [4], and that content sensibly is not quoted or summarized (because it can't be). This reference could be included with a single sentence at Awards and decorations of the British Armed Forces. All the rest of the article is unsourced, and probably would violate WP:NOTCATALOG if it were sourced by just replicating a complete list of unannotated items found in the original. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT. Whether this is a directory or extract from the table of a textbook, it is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:41, 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. ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Zappella[edit]

Giuseppe Zappella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Italy. Joeykai (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he is literally the current head coach of Juventus FC (women) [5], and a quick Google search returns plenty of articles about him. I recommend expanding and sourcing it instead, as the subject is clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Angelo (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Current manager of high profile team with ongoing career and had extensive pro career in pre internet era. I found [6], [7], and [8] among many more Italian sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. Clearly notable as both player and coach. Lazy nomination where no BEFORE has been performed. My Google search has this as the 3rd hit, which would have shown the nominator (had they bothered) that the article was simply in need of an update and clean. GiantSnowman 21:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 12 lines in the lasentinella is not SIGCOV, calciogiappone.altervista.org is a blog and "Museo Grigio is an independent, non-political and non-profit association and aims to support, disseminate and promote the image of Alessandria Unione Sportiva, its culture, its history and its fans." Hardly unbiased. juventus.com is his employer and therefore non independent. Dougal18 (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough WP:SIGCOV to establish subject's notability. -Tumbuka Arch (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per above. Pass smoothly in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly should be notable, sources need to be hunted down and the article cleaned up. Seems like there is enough for WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 19:05, 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 delete‎. After discussion rough consensus developed that the sourcing failed WP:NCORP and associated subguidelines. This is a case in which I found the delete arguments as whole to be more policy compliant. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5ire[edit]

5ire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage from independent sources. The coverage is routine coverage of funding (WP:ORGTRIV), reprints of partnership announcements (WP:ORGIND), or "best startup" type awards that don't convey inherent notability. ~ A412 ^talk! 09:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Computing, and India. ~ A412 ^talk! 09:37, 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]

• Keep Let's delve into the article's content before we explore the sources. The focus here is on the company's collaborations. Based on the information, as outlined in the sources, their core mission is to provide blockchain-based services. This focus on partnerships makes sense – the involvement of notable private and public organizations lends significant weight to the company's work. National and international collaborations can elevate the importance of a project and showcasing its potential. To my mind, focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative. For example, titles for this company were used by the media, which in my opinion might make the article out of the encyclopedia mode, such as 'Sustainability-Focused Unicorn', 'India's 'fastest-growing blockchain unicorn', 'Green revolution with 5ire blockchain', or 'HOW 5IRE IS BUILDING A SUSTAINABILITY-FOCUSSED LAYER 1 BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM' and etc. The centrality of collaborations to the company's mission is why the article focuses heavily on these key partnerships. After its token was listed, this article became the target of repeated attacks. The content was constantly edited, sometimes deleted entirely, and sometimes filled with irrelevant ads to be tagged for issues. Sources that I added recentlly ([9], [10], [11]) + other source in article, discuss a different aspect of the company, focusing on its internal workings (mechanism and performance) rather than its collaborations. The extensive coverage surrounding this company is likely due to its rapid growth. Established in 2021, it became a unicorn company in 2022. However, the sources identified, focus significantly on the company. In my judgment, informed by the articles I've created and edited, this article meets Wikipedia's Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) requirements. YaseroSari (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I was hoping this one would just go as an expired PROD because although I don't think it is notable, I don't think it is nothing either. A very young company that has managed to secure significant seed funding, it may well become notable, and it is probably just WP:TOOSOON. Anyway, now there is a keep vote, let's look at these sources. The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP and so sources must meet WP:SIRS (although, actually, all GNG sources should meet that. But that is moot). The thing to note here about these three sources, and all the article sourcing, is that it is reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources (pay attention to note d in the policy). These are news sources telling us about how they have secured $100 million funding, and also telling us about the stock market valuation - which is high, but we have seen that before in tech companies, many of which only became notable when they crashed and burned. Reporting the funding and valuation, no matter how many sources do it, is still news reporting, and WP:PRIMARYNEWS is a useful guideline to consider on that score. To look at this another way: what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? Note that the lead of the article currently only really tells us that they are notable for having secured money and a big paper valuation. I'd be content with a redirect if a suitable target were known. I don't think there is an article to be found here yet, and the sources do not meet SIRS, and so this is not notable for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I voted to keep it, but I do have some reservations about YaseroSari's idea that I'd like to discuss further. I do not accept this: focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative, You can focus on the company's core strengths and fundamentals by keeping the tone neutral. Even this move helps to prove the subject's notability. Anyway, I think an article focusing on the company's foundation and services would have been more informative. I also disagree with Sirfurboy, that stated what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? The Partnerships section of this article explains exactly what services this company provides. If this part was written better, it would specify the services of this company more clearly. If this company does not provide a efficient services, why should these organizations, which are considered notable, cooperate with this emerging company? This explanation of mine is not to prove the notability of this company by their partnerships, but to prove that this company provides services that they need. The source of each collaboration states the reason for it and what service they used and aslo more collaborations can be found on Google. It needs to be rewritten to highlight its services and base, not to be deleted.Dejaqo (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The partnership section shows what they are doing, but not what they are doing that is notable. It would be the section to focus on though. Do we have WP:SIRS sources discussing a notable product/output? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This Indian company's rapid ascent has caught the eye of both domestic media within a year and even some Arabic sources, likely due to its Dubai headquarters. A quick Google search turns up a wealth of information, including articles. Finding three sources to show WP:GNG, shouldn't be too much trouble·Gedaali (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a bit frustrating. This argument is WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The relevant guidelines here are WP:NCORP and we are looking for sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AfD is not a vote, and the time to actually find the sources and discuss them is now. I am not adamantly against this page existing. But what sources exist that show this is notable as a company, and not just a startup with a big valuation? If we can't answer that question, we should not be voting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. My comment was to check if the current sources in the article would be enough, as I noticed from the edit history that some unacceptable sources were removed. This company has been making headlines for three reasons: first, it achieved unicorn status. Second, its token was listed on exchanges. Third, its collaborations have garnered a lot of media attention. About the first, as I red, you believe its WP:TOOSOON. In the second case, you would raised a concern that the sources might be too specific to cryptocurrency. In the third case, you clearly rejected it. I bring again some of the sources that I think meet the criteria. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and... . This article has potential, but I think there might be ways to strengthen it.Gedaali (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. But your experience is limited by the fact that you have only ever commented on AfDs today. Moreover, rather than giving 3 well chosen sources, you pasted in 8. Source 3 does not mention 5ire, and 3 of these are all from the Economic Times so count as one. They are also not the fruit of new searches but sources already on the page, so already considered. I can put together a source analysis table, but which of these do you actually think are secondary sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the sources provided, and I think the Economic Times source actually has analysis, but in general, the rest of the provided sources fall short on significant coverage, basically reprinting the funding announcement of "5ire raised money on a 1b+ valuation, here's what they said they're doing with it". ~ A412 ^talk! 17:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that sourcing is beginning to be discussed in earnest, this is to give that process more time. A source analysis would helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sourcing. No answer to my query above asking for which of those 8 sources meet CORPDEPTH, so I have analysed them all. As I say, 3 of them are from the Economic Times and count as one. That is moot too because only one of the Economic Times articles has anything substantive. My analysis lacks some work I did not check the reliability of sources that failed on other criteria. My feeling is they all look reliable, but appearances can be deceptive. I also did not check the independence, which will be affected if we find a press release or evidence of a press release that they are written off. My analysis is my own, and I am happy to discuss any points made. Here is the table:

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [12] [13] [14]		Indian financial paper, part of the Times of India group.	There are three links, the second has no coverage and the third is not significant, just reporting, along with others, the high valuation. It is the first of these that goes beyond that. Note that the first is also occasioned by the same issue - the valuation - but it leads the writer to dig out additional history and analysis and is significant and useful. The piece raises queries about the high valuation as no product is yet released. Note that my evaluation is based only on what I can see in preview as the content is paywalled and when I attempted to pay it told me that readers in Europe and California are prevented from making payments for their content. This is an Indian news source but I have no access to the content. However, my evaluation of the depth is based on the claim it is a 10 minute read, suggesting 1000-1500 words. Coupled with what I see, I believe this is significant analysis, but I could, in fact, be wrong. ETA, in light of the analysis below by Highking, I am unable to refute that analysis as I have not read the full text and cannot read it. I would have paid, but the content is geographocally restricted. I cannot therefore verify my view and could well be wrong. I am updating this to unkown. 17 April 16:28
Tech in Asia [15]		Probably reliable, I just haven't checked.	"And that brings us to today’s two-part Big Story. 5ire, a blockchain company that few had ever heard of a year ago, rocketed to unicorn status in July. On closer inspection, the deal seems doubtful, given it hasn’t yet launched a product or gotten significant traction."	It is occasioned by news but the quoted paragraph, just about all it says on 5ire, is analysis. Extremely brief analysis.
inc 42 [16]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Probably. I haven't verified.	There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.	Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.
Business Standard [17]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Probably. I haven't verified.	There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.	Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.
Money Control [18]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Probably. I haven't verified.	There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH.	Report of becoming unicorn. Primary news reporting
Mint [19]	Is this off the back of a press release?	Unclear. If this is Mintpress news, then this is no. Mintpress news are a deprecated source. But I think they may be different.	There is some information about 5ire but does not meet CORPDEPTH. It is all company supplied history and no analysis.	Report of acquisition of a stake in Network Capital. This is primary news reporting.

My summary: we have one source counting towards notability, but sources must be multiple. We are not there yet. I also note the source that points out lack of any products. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of issues with your analysis. The Tech in Asia article seems quite significant. With over ten paragraphs, and repeated mentions of 5ire (10 times), it appears to offer a detailed exploration of the topic. Why wouldn't you consider it significant? Do you consider it as a "passing mention"? I did not see this website among the unreliable news websites that you doubt its reliability. Also there are two other sources from same website, The convicted fraudster backing 5ire, ‘India’s 105th unicorn’ and 5ire investors angry over delay on promised refunds. CEO blames mystery fund. Regarding the second source of the Economic Times, reference number 4 and 5 are essentially the same and the problem is presented in the link. Anyway, 5ire wins the AIBC 2022 'Social Impact Project of the Year' award, this article looks like it covers the subject quite significantly. In my opinion, this article meets the WP:GNG because of the significant coverage it receives from reliable sources, as evidenced by the WP:SIGCOV. Also, I'm not sure about reliability and independence of Blockchain Unicorn 5ire Unveils a New Approach Towards Sustainability Pratik Gauri, CEO - 5ire, please check it out. Gedaali (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are commenting on an NCORP AfD. So I have repeatedly mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. This is the relevant test for significant coverage:

Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

You are new to AfD, and very welcome here, but I think you are missing something here. Not surprising. NCORP AfDs have a lot to consider. But what have we got about this company that allows us to write more than a stub that tells us it has a big valuation? What notable thing does it do? The sources considered above indicate a lack of product, so it is not just this AfD asking that question. That last one you just asked me to look at purports to answer the question, but it doesn't. All it tells us is that it is a proof of stake blockchain. Sorry... a sustainable proof of stake blockchain. Whatever that means. I mean... all proof of stake is eminently more sustainable than proof of work. But How is that notable? I suppose it may become notable if people start using it. But it isn't yet. But then, you might say that at least that source is telling us about a product. Except it is telling us about a product in 5ire's words with 5ire's diagrams and 5ire's examples. That piece is clearly not independent. So nope, we can't use that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate the clarification. I think your last explanation was about Outlook, perhaps we discuss that another time, but for now. About 3 sources of Tech in Asia and 2 of The Economic Times (1, 2), based on the definitions in WP:CORPDEPTH and their absence in Examples of trivial coverage consider them as significant coverage. You asked about this company's product. Going back to the above comments posted by others. This company has a track record of providing service. I do not expect physical product/service from this company. Their collaborations are focused on delivering service, not on promoting each other or their own agendas. For example their collaboration with Goa Police was in order to digitize its operations and utilization of paperless document by using blockchain technology (3) and also delivered other services in their other collaborations. This company's product are its services. About its service delivery, I think it has been discussed enough here service delivery.Here is my analysis of several sources: Gedaali (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This company has a track record of providing service. No it doesn't. The example you cite is a Memorandum of Understanding to assist Goa police with something that is, in any case, unrelated to the blockchain. It is an MoU. They haven't done anything yet. This all looks like press release and vapourware. To be honest, at this point I am concerned this looks like an investor scam and we are being made participants in it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing all the comments that have been posted in this discussion so far, evidences and clues, I agree with you. Delete. Gedaali (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [20]
Economic Times [21]			This article refers to the award of this company, but it also deals with other issues
Tech in Asia [22]			I checked this from WP:CORPDEPTH and the entire article consists of more than ten paragraphs focusing on the company
Tech in Asia [23]

For now, these 4 cases are enough for analysis. Gedaali (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The majority of sources are just press releases and the most in-depth sources are about alleged fraud (which is not mentioned in the article). One has already been linked above, here are the other two I found:
  • The convicted fraudster backing 5ire, ‘India’s 105th unicorn’
  • 5ire investors angry over delay on promised refunds. CEO blames mystery fund

The question (as with many of these crypto articles...) seems to be whether the alleged fraud has generated enough in-depth coverage to merit inclusion. Citing (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to second table I have already explained to you that you should aggregate multiple sources from the same publisher. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". per WP:MULTSOURCES. So your table simply repeats Economic Times that I felt did meet SIRS, and disagrees with my analysis on Tech in Asia based on a paragraph count rather than the content. The content on the first link to Tech in Asia does not meet CORPDEPTH, but I don't think you can have read that site very well because the 10 paragraphs are nothing much, but there are links in the article to two longer articles, which, along with your link [15], paint a picture that might suggest possible fraud. If there is a notable subject here, it is not the company itself, which doesn't seem to do anything at all. It is about a possible fraud. Citing also notices this in the comment above. Are we WP:TOOSOON for an article about the alleged fraud? Or could we be looking at renaming this article and repurposing based on reliable secondary coverage of alleged fraud? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just going to expand on my view that there is no product here, because checking the crypto exchanges, you can actually buy 5irechain tokens [24] as of last December. Hopefully you didn't, as the price is falling... but meh, it's crypto. However that token would suggest there is a blockchain product. Except there isn't. Here is an announcement for what you can buy: [25]. This is an ERC-20 token which uses the Ethereum blockchain. So we still don't have any actual blockchain, and what we have is just another cryptocurrency token. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this has no byline, neither does this which indicates NEWSORGINDIA. You will notice that second one starts with location which is classic press-release style confirming churnalism. For this and this are from a publication that does not appear to have editorial oversight. Not to mention the writer is a freelancer journalist who writes for many different publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 18 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. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Looking at the references which other editors claim to pass GNG/NCORP in their analysis tables above:
  • TechInAsia Article 1 has insufficient in-depth information on the company from a source unaffiliated with the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
  • TechInAsia Article 2 ais commenting on the same story as Article 1, is little more than a gossip column but more importantly, has zero in-depth information about the company, also fails CORPDEPTH
  • Article 3 and Article 4 from TechInAsia also both fail for the same reason, there is insufficient in-depth information about the company.
  • There are a couple of articles in the Economic Times. This one is a puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company and their execs after their funding announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. This one also appears to rely entirely on information originating from the company or people connected with the company or investors. Fails CORPEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This from Inc42 is based entirely on an interview and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
  • This in the Business Standard is also regurgitating information provided by the company in an announcement, fails ORGIND
  • This from MoneyControl fails for the same reason
  • This in Livemint is just one of many many article on this date regurgitating the company announcement. You can see a list of other articles on Crunchbase following the announcement. Fails ORGIND

None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It is a pity the source assessment table doesn't include a column for WP:CORPDEPTH and one for WP:ORGIND, it would make it easier to show why references fail GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP : after reading the article and checking with references I’ve removed some of the unreferenced content but company seems to be value adding in blockchain references are reliable NCORP is passed. Having multiple ref yet its not indepth I’m gonna leave it to the admin. HarryD (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having multiple ref yet its not indepth - That is not an NCORP pass. if a reference does not have significant coverage, it does not count towards notability. You can't aggregate lots of passing mentions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay Understood. HarryD (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & Comment Indian company with 1 billion valuation which means unicorn since I can’t find any guideline for unicorn startups having an article here, but definitely seems notable to me in general though the article is unnecessarily at start class or more, only facts needs to be added. For me its a KEEP Because High value startup and has quiet a lot media presence other than just paid pieces. AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Yes, I’ve just started, was learning over the months understanding the policies when to add vote etc. its my favourite area now so my vote will not be considered? I’ve voted in other discussions as well :/ AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How have you been learning over the months without hands-on experience editing Wikipedia? If you have edited using an IP previously, please disclose the same in your user page and the areas where you have previously edited. Doing so will prevent other editors from assuming you are a single-purpose account. Either way, this conversation should continue on your talk page. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The available sources do not appear to meet any notability guideline currently in use on English Wikipedia, as opposed to colloquial definitions of the word. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These references all fall short of WP:ORGCRIT which is a requirement to meet to establish notability for companies. Every one of these publications allows pay-for-play and based on the bylines some of the clearly fall in that category. Add on WP:NEWSORGINDIA and I cannot find a single in-depth source that could be considered for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crypto fluff. Nearly every keep !voter has relatively few edits. I generally agree with Sirfurboy's source table but I would discount The Economic Times entirely as it is part of The Times of India, which is known to accept coverage for pay. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Adams[edit]

Lyle Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Jamaica, and Florida. Joeykai (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see any notability here, either in business or football. Anwegmann (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Technology entrepreneur or footballer?! [26] and [27], all I could find. Fails WP:GNG.Gedaali (talk) 20:24, 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. ✗plicit 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Susini (baseball)[edit]

Antonio Susini (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Crime, Baseball, and Cuba. Joeykai (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did you try WP:BEFORE? [28][29] – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clear pass of GNG based on the references presented by Muboshgu along with references currently in the article. Frank Anchor 14:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep made national headlines for his murder of another ballplayer Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The recent sources added to the article each provide WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:48, 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 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gergő Máté[edit]

Gergő Máté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Máté played 67 mins of professional football then completely disappeared. I can't even find evidence of any statistical coverage of an amateur career. The best that I could find were Nemzeti Sport and Rangadó, both being trivial mentions and far from WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:SPORTBASIC, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 02:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Couldn't agree more with what's written already MaskedSinger (talk) 08:20, 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. ✗plicit 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szabolcs Horváth[edit]

Szabolcs Horváth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Played in 2 matches 15 years ago but has only played in the lower tiers since and does not seem to have any WP:SIGCOV. The best that I could find in Hungarian sources were HEOL, Rangadó and Nemzeti Sport, none of which are even close to being in-depth coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]