< April 13	April 15 >

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

The result was redirect‎ to Benzodiazepine. ✗plicit 23:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tolufazepam[edit]

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

Non-notable chemical compound. Studied in a single paper from 1988; WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of further study or commercialization. A redirect to Benzodiazepine in 2014 was contested. With respect to the late User:DGG, I think a redirect or outright deletion is the correct outcome. Jfire (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jfire (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to benzodiazepine: Reference 2 seems to be secondary and reliable. Otherwise, only primary sources and database listings found. Poorly-studied compound that in the cited sources is mostly discussed along with other compounds, making it a good candidate for a redirect. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per WeirdNAnnoyed. A stub can be short but not a dictionary entry. -- Otr500 (talk) 08:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Article no longer unreferenced. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apsara Dance[edit]

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

I initially redirected this page to the Royal Ballet of Cambodia page, but this has been reverted. The page is basically unreferenced, and so it's not clear how much of it is true. As far as I can tell, this is simply one of several performances of the company's repertoire, and I don't think it has sufficient independent notability. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and Cambodia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is one of the cultural symbols of Cambodia. While not old (the tradition dates to mid-20th century), it is very notable (literally tens of serious works, WP:GNG applies) due to its prominence. I have added few sources yesterday; to validate my claim it might be enough to briefly look at the first one (multi-page treatise by known researchers in a book published at a respected academic publishing house). The article as-is requires some serious improvement (the bulk of the text hails from early 2010s after all), but I did not find anything grossly wrong in it. The main area of improvement would be to stress that this is a newly manufactured tradition (cf. Neotraditions), simply inspired by the ancient visual art. --Викидим (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The Apsara Dance is the quintessential dance of the Royal Ballet of Cambodia. It is the most well known dance of Cambodia and is beloved by Cambodians and non-Cambodians throughout the world. The dance tradition has been a part of Cambodian culture for over a thousand years, and has been recognized as an Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO, recognition of which includes the Apsara Dance. Although the Apsara Dance itself may be a 'modern' reinterpretation of another dance in the Khmer Classical Dance repertoire, it still is important nonetheless. Deleting this article entirely is a bit excessive, and the page can be reworked as needed. I disagree with the previous commentor stating that the article should be reworked to stress that it is a newly manufactured tradition, when it is not. MosheeYoshee (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Daugbjerg et al. (first source) for it being a neotradition (Daugbjerg does not use the word) forged first by French (p. 28) and later in the independent Cambodia (p. 31). Other sources AFAIK tell the same story: while the bas reliefs of dancers are indeed very old, everything else about the dance is very much 20th century, the link between the ballet and Angkor Vat is "imaginary" (p. 32). Викидим (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left this comment under yours in the talk page. Leaving it here for further discussion.

There is a film that discusses the creation of the Apsara Dance called "The Perfect Motion" by Xavier de Lauzanne, but I haven't seen it myself. It references primary sources and features interviews with Princess Norodom Buppha Devi.

As for the Daugbjerg et al source mentioned, it seems kind of biased and heavy handed with the wording, it is western centric, focusing too much on supposed colonial inspirations (conjecture by western authors). Khmer Classical Dance existed prior to colonial times. The source says something about commodifying the Apsara, however that language is pretty charged. What would make more sense is the revival of the Apsara, and Khmer Classical Dance, of which the traditions were almost lost due to the events of the Khmer Rouge. MosheeYoshee (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is unrelated to the AfD request. Let's move it to Talk:Apsara Dance#Modern recreation for tourists where I quote Norodom Buppha Devi herself saying that the history of the dance is quite recent. Викидим (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm leaning towards Keep given the improvements to the article but some assessment of the sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The article needs some work but overall matches the contents of the primary sources listed. MosheeYoshee (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any major issues with sourcing. The article can be better, as described above and on Talk:Apsara Dance#Modern recreation for tourists. But the dichotomy between "modern dance inspired by ancient bar reliefs" and "faithful recreation of the ancient dance tradition" is like "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter", an earnest PoV disagreement that ideally should be described in the article. Викидим (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the article that it was created in the 1950s as a revised form of the 'Phuong Neary' dance, which existed prior. The 'Phuong Neary' dance uses the same music as the Apsara dance, the Apsara dance uses altered lyrics. Relating to your concern about dance being a recreation for tourists, the Tuchman-Rosta article mentions the tourist aspect of dance as merely a by product of conservation efforts. It was also mentioned in the discussion that the royal ballet did not perform for tourists during King Sisowath's reign. MosheeYoshee (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy your reply to Talk:Apsara Dance#Modern recreation for tourists and respond there. Here we 100% agree that the topic is very notable and the article should be kept; there is no need to bother the future closer with these details. Викидим (talk) 04:39, 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. Star Mississippi 02:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reality Is What You Can Get Away With[edit]

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

A wp:before reveals no independent sources. There is a couple of comments on the talk page that says as much. Fails notability criteria as not having been significantly discussed in independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, EVENTCRIT, and BKCRIT. I Prodded this at the end of May 2023 [1] – and it was declined. --Steve Quinn (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the two references in the article are one-line-passing-mentions. Also, it is not likely that the first reference [2] would be considered a reliable source. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reviewed in Danville Register and Bee, Austin American-Statesman and St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Last one is a bit short, but three is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The Danville Register and Bee is passing mention, not significant coverage. The Austin American Statement and the St. Louis paper do not discuss the topic in detail. These are not sufficient for NBOOK. These sources prove that this book exists. Based on these I can recommend merge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Winnett, Scott (April 1992). "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With". Locus. No. 375. p. 53.
  The review is listed here, here, and here.
2. "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With". Science Fiction Chronicle. May 1992. p. 30.
  The review is listed here and here.
3. Point, Michael (1992-05-31). "Two works take tours of alternate worlds, virtual and screenplay". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 277 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "After a uniformly hilarious introduction, wherein a futuristic professor attempts to explain the culture of our time, Wilson uses illustrations that mix movie characters and scenes in new configurations to provide a challenging but consistently amusing story line that paints contemporary society with bold strokes of black humor. ... It's a quick read but one that holds up well with repeated readings as the different connections and relationships between the images unveil new meanings each time around."
4. Bolhafner, J. Stephen (1992-06-14). "A Screenplay For The Mind". St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 149 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "The cover calls Robert Anton Wilson's "Reality Is What You Can Get Away With" (130 pages, Dell, $13 paperback) an "illustrated screenplay." Unlike most published screenplays, however, this one is intended not for the movie theater, but for the mind's own screen. Although there is nothing downright unproducible about Wilson's script, one imagines that it was never seriously intended to be filmed, but to be presented as published, with enough pictures — nearly one per page to let the viewer imagine the visuals. Indeed, imagination is one of its major themes. Many readers know Wilson from the "Illuminatus!" trilogy he wrote with Robert Shea in the early '70s. This work is just as outrageously funny, and if not quite as paranoid, at least as cynical. Yet, it is ultimately a polemical work, with a message that is quite simple yet apparently hard for most people to follow: "Think for yourself!""
5. Martin, D. R. (1992-08-09). "Science Fiction". The Commercial Appeal. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review provides 134 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "If you want a good jolt, go to the bookstore and grab a copy of Robert Anton Wilson's Reality Is What You Can Get Away With (Dell, paperback, $13). It's a book that makes no sense at all, and more sense than anything you're likely to have read in years. It zings you, zaps you, sticks it to you. Wilson has concocted a "screenplay" written in the late 20th Century that has been rediscovered by scholars in a distant future. The "screenplay" is an anarchic minstrel show; a cavalcade of the tragicomic absurdities of "saying that which is not so." Wilson nails our society-in-denial right between the eyes. Possibly, Reality Is What You Can Get Away With is not even science fiction. But I treasure its hallucinatory, intoxicatingly nonlinear perspective on our dangerous times."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Reality Is What You Can Get Away With to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cunard's sources work for me. Toughpigs (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more evaluations of the newly located sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 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!} 21:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SamLogic[edit]

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

This company doesn't appear to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any coverage of this company itself, and the products don't get much reliable coverage either. The Swedish article is the exact same as the English article. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, Software, and Sweden. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There might be more TechWorld articles and also descriptions of their software on Softpedia. IgelRM (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the software postings describe anything about the company at all, and those downloads websites are not reliable sources. Websites like Softpedia basically only exist to get people to download software from them so they accidentally install malicious installer programs or malware. The TechWorld article isn't even about the company itself, and is basically just an ad for one of their products. Nothing I could find counts as meeting the WP:NCORP requirements of containing WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject of the article directly in WP:RS. I did find coverage of the company in a college thesis, but information from it was seemingly taken from an email interview, making it WP:PRIMARY, and theses are not usually counted as reliable sources. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thesis in question (presumably) – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Techworld article is clearly unsuitable, I couldn't find any other decent coverage and both the Swedish and English articles were created by single-purpose accounts. On the another hand, supposing there were coverage of this Swedish company founded in the 1990s, would it really show up in my own Google and database searches? I'm inclined to delete but I would be reassured if we had some Swedish input. – Teratix ₵ 15:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:32, 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!} 07:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Giant[edit]

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

No coverage of this band on the web and nothing in their article suggests notability as per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. InDimensional (talk) 21:59, 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!} 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Currently fails WP:BAND and can't find any sources that could help. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2010 Medicaid fraud. Star Mississippi 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Kazarian[edit]

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

This person doesn't seem to be notable outside of their conviction related to the 2010 Medicaid fraud, so I don't think this meets WP:CRIMINAL. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was originally a redirect to the aforementioned Medicaid fraud article. BD2412 T 22:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- BD2412, it should fall back there! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is well documented to be the first Vor which is a high ranking mobster to be sentenced for racketeering. This is said by the FBI! He also is well known for what he was involved in by MANY sources. Please read the references again, thank you. Nocturnal781 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nocturnal781: It looks like the Wikipedia page and the references are about the racketeering case he got convicted in. Normally in a situation where a person is only mentioned because of their role in a crime and that crime has a page, they shouldn't have a standalone page. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Medicaid fraud: Nothing much here to push on a stand alone title. The article doesn't meet WP:CRIMINAL or WP:BLPIE. There is always a saying criterion for such article. Move back as a redirect to the main topic per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:50, 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!} 22:59, 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. Star Mississippi 02:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohag Jol[edit]

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

Only run of the mill coverage. Sohom (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:COI-problem is also possible. This article reads as work from the marketing department desperately looking for sources. The Banner talk 22:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have improved the page by adding more reliable sources.And these sources clearly passes WP:NTV and WP:GNG with sufficient WP:RS. So there is no question of deletion. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have changed not a letter since the nomination... The Banner talk 08:59, 2 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!} 23:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: significant coverage in Aaj Tak Bangla and TOI; if sources are not judged sufficient,redirect to Zee Bangla#Drama series 2 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 8 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!} 22:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Setting aside the COI and SPI issue, all of the references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not a single one has a byline that shows it is written by anyone on staff which indicates churnalism or sponsored post.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable television series and clearly passes WP:GNG and and WP:NTV coverage. 103.121.36.100 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note to closer - As expected, IP address part of the SPI related to this page shows up to vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also note associated SPI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been Like This (disambiguation)[edit]

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

WP:ONEOTHER Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dab is unneeded since there's only one other song named "Been Like This". 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 19:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant disambiguation as there's only one related title. X (talk) 19:41, 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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 15:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Wrexham A.F.C. season[edit]

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

Not playing in professional division, does not appear to meet WP:SIGCOV under WP:GNG Crowsus (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Wales. Crowsus (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fully professional division rule no longer applies and there will be plenty of available sources that can be used to flesh out the article. The National league is well covered even when teams don't commission their own documentary. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this existence of the documentary covering this season essentially ensures notability, despite the fact they did not play in a professional division. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the documentary only covers part of the season, there's enough coverage. Giant Snowman 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep We still have an SNG for NSEASONS, however with the events surrounding the season, there should be more than enough sources that can be added to bulk it up. The article needs a clean up for sure. Govvy (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:37, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Jersey earthquake[edit]

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

This fails the ten-year test, and goes against WP:NOTNEWS. Thousands of earthquakes with a magnitude of 4 happen every year, and this one didn't even cause a single death, and not much damage was reported. Additionally, I'll quote myself from the talk page: not only is this recentism, but this is also Americentrism. Such a earthquake in, say, the United Kingdom wouldn't have an article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and New Jersey. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This earthquake has been widely covered in reliable and verifiable sources and as the "strongest earthquake to affect New Jersey since the 5.3 Mfa 1783 New Jersey earthquake" and as "one of largest to hit the East Coast", there is a strong claim of notability. It is not its size, but its rarity that earned coverage from some publications like Al Jazeera, very much outside the New York Metropolitan area. Scientific American has already questioned "How Likely Is a Major Earthquake in New York City—And Is the City Prepared for It?". One earthquake article for the state every 240 years doesn't seem to be too many. Citing a "ten-year test" as a rationalization for deletion is cute; I'm still voting Keep, but I'll set a reminder for April 8, 2034, to see if notability still stands. Alansohn (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Alansohn, as it was a widely reported event -1ctinus📝🗨 22:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the coverage, it appears to satisfy WP:EVENT, albeit not very strongly. The statement about comparable earthquakes in the UK is an WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument. Apocheir (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not only that, but on the talk page where that point was already mentioned, the 1984 Llŷn Peninsula earthquake and 2007 Kent earthquake were mentioned, so even if "other stuff" mattered, there it is. Tduk (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to either List of earthquakes in the United States, List of earthquakes in 2024 or Seismicity of the New York City area. I was considering nominating this for deletion myself. While there was a significant amount of coverage during the event, the lack of damage, injuries and more importantly WP:SUSTAINED coverage suggests that this earthquake was not that notable other than being near New York City. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's see what the experts are saying. Rutger's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences:

Just Another Normal Day for Plate Tectonics: "Although exciting and novel to east coast residents, the tectonic events on Friday, April 5th represent just another day of plate tectonics. According to the USGS, 67 earthquakes of magnitude 2 to 6.8 were observed worldwide on April 5th, 22 of which occurred in the United States. The New Jersey earthquake was the largest event recorded in the United States that day, followed in size by an earthquake in Belden, CA. Worldwide, the USGS recorded 5 earthquakes with magnitudes between 3 and 4, and 25 earthquakes with magnitudes between 4 and 5 with the largest occurring in southern Mexico and Taiwan. All these earthquakes occurred along active tectonic plate boundaries, making the event in New Jersey even more interesting in that it was the only significant one to occur away from an active plate tectonic boundary."

In the Scientific American article Alansohn linked to above:

"Although not fully unexpected, the April 5 quake was indeed notable—on a geologically “short” timescale. “This was the largest earthquake in probably 140 years for this area,” says Judith Hubbard, a Cornell University earthquake scientist. The last one like it happened way back in 1884. “For people, that might seem like a long time,” Hubbard adds. “For faults, that’s pretty normal." Mooonswimmer 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of earthquakes in the United States or List of earthquakes in 2024, or Keep for now. While it may have garnered significant attention, sooner or later, it will lose its relevancy as there's barely any significant damage or injuries from the small earthquake. However, until if there would be more aftershocks or an even stronger earthquake to come (though that depends on whether if that fault could generate one or not), then either this would need comprehensive update or have another article altogether while making this to be a foreshock. For now this would be kept until there would be nothing more then it'll just be considered Low-Importance. ROBLOXGamingDavid (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lead establishes its significance, and the coverage/cultural impact this earthquake had was substantial. As geologists work to identify its source, it will continue to receive media attention. By the argument proposed, featured articles I've written on earthquakes on the past aren't notable either - an earthquake in this part of the US of this magnitude, felt by so many people, and causing damage seems noteworthy. ceranthor 05:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/RD Not worth a standalone article, coverage in Seismicity of the New York City area is enough. The American press is blowing this story. No doubt this is an interesting experience for many people, that's fine for Wikinews but not a standalone article. As a non-American living on the other side of the globe, I haven't heard more about this earthquake; unimpressed and puzzled by the need for this article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So the earthquake got significant reliable and verifiable coverage, but the article should be deleted because the "American press is blowing this story" and you've decided that the press coverage is somehow wrong and can be written off based on your say-so? If being "unimpressed and puzzled by the need for [an] article" was an actual standard, 90% or more of all of Wikipedia should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There's nothing remarkable about the coverage, so what? The earthquake itself isn't anything special Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are a few things I notice here.

Regarding the sources: While the quake did get significant coverage from reliable sources, much of the coverage is from WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources published directly after it happened. Many of the other sources really talk about the seismicity of the New York City area, or the Ramapo Fault, rather than the quake itself. * Regarding impact: On the one hand, the quake caused very little damage and no injuries (just a lot of alarm), which per WP:N(EQ)#Specific guidance typically indicates that the quake isn't notable. Indeed, the "Impact" section of the quake talks mostly about things that were resolved within a day (e.g. the Holland Tunnel's closure, which lasted all of 15 minutes). I was about to !vote that this article be deleted or redirected for that reason. However, if the earthquake were to have a larger aftershock or were to be followed by a more severe quake, then that would definitely be notable.

I'm still undecided for now, but I'm thinking this page can adequately be covered in Seismicity of the New York City area. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Industries such as catastrophe risk modeling, insurance, and reinsurance find articles such as this helpful. These industries concern themselves with areas where there is high exposure of assets. Even a slightly larger earthquake in this area could have caused millions of dollars in repair costs because the building stock is not built to withstand major shaking. Like it or not, a significant proportion of world's insurance capital is invested in the United States. As a researcher in risk myself, wikipedia articles of noteworthy earthquakes help in documentation. 72.22.168.242 (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy-based argument. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to Wikipedia:Notability (events), this earthquake is "significant" and "unusual" because it occurred in an area that is considered low seismic, which suggests that our understanding of seismicity in the area may be incomplete. The causes will be researched by scientists as there are theories of ancient buried rifts. This earthquake is "interesting" both from an academic standpoint and practical (risk industry) standpoint. 72.22.168.242 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn above. The fact that this was the most severe earthquake in the area since 1783 is evidence that this article passes the ten-year test. If there were a similarly rare earthquake in another part of the world, it would also merit an article. --Albany NY (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in line with aforementioned reasons. Will pass the 10-year test. Claim of Americentrism is dubious. In line with policy, a historically very rare earthquake in the most populated metro area of America easily justifies an article, especially if something like the 2008 Market Rasen earthquake has an article. --Lithium6ion (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am going to have to agree with most of the people here. I am currently a resident of New Jersey myself, and I live about 9 miles north of where the epicenter was located. This was indeed, an extremely rare earthquake considering the fact that the East Coast isn't that seismically active. It was indeed a 4.8 magnitude earthquake, which would make it nearly a magnitude 5, not 4. There was a good amount of damage done. AND, there are still aftershocks being felt and causing damage. Just recently, a home in Union was deemed unsafe due to it. Also take into consideration that Infrastructure on the East Coast is not designed to withstand earthquakes unlike California. The fact that you would put the claim of Americentrism is outright crazy. And there are plenty of articles regarding the earthquakes in the UK, such as the 2007 Kent Earthquake or the 1990 Bishop's Castle Earthquake which had very similar magnitudes. This article would be extremely helpful for researchers and engineers who could use this to help plan ahead in case an earthquake such as the one in Virginia were to occur again. And the article will pass the 10 year test. While yes, most sources come from news media outlets, there is still information being found about the quake and being released, so it will take time to update the article. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You also said that "not much" damage was reported, but there is still a good amount of it. Despite the fact that the magnitude was small for this earthquake, it still caused enough damage and shock in the region to where it should deserve it's own Wikipedia page. And no, the page isn't news. It is an event, so the claim that it goes against WP:NOTNEWS LeSwiss1886 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU The claim like I stated earlier about the Americentrism is still bad. A better example instead of the Kent and Bishop's Castle quakes is the 2011 Guerrero Quake. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bludgeoning? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to, and I apologize if I was in any way. I just believe that this page should be kept. I also forgot to add the previous 2 comments onto the main comment, so I just added on. Once again, I apologize if I did bludgeon. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hey, don't WP:BITE.
2. Erm, isn't this their own reply? No reply below has them arguing. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my own reply, I also might have argued without me realizing. I don't know. But to be honest, I don't know if I bludgeoned or not. I just wrote my honest opinion on the whole matter. Like I mentioned before, I accidentally forgot to add on to my comment, and I couldn't figure out how to change that, so I just replied to my own comment. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you probably need to take a primer in Wikitext :)
(note that VisualEditor is not available on talk pages, so you probably want to look at the source editor part)
((W-graphical)) has more quick-start links if you're interested! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for the help :) LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas just got hit with a 4.4 magnitude earthquake. I have a live tracker on right now. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, how is this relevant to this discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just get a little excited sometimes. I guess it is also rare in that region for it's magnitude? LeSwiss1886 (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn. The thematic coverage satisfies NEVENT. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn and LeSwiss. It's definitely worth having a page about it since earthquakes, especially at its magnitude, strike around here very often. OurAfternoonMalady (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean don't strike around here very often? Earthquakes in New Jersey are pretty rare at this magnitude. And I will defend this page to make sure it stays up. It is worth having a page about it. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Guess I should've read over my message before sending it lol. OurAfternoonMalady (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. We all make small mistakes lol LeSwiss1886 (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a rare and notable event. Very few earthquakes this strong happen so far east in the United States and near so many population centers. Poxy4 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Poxy4 That is very true. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This earthquake is rare and notable, because it happened in New Jersey, and moderate earthquakes don't happen often in New Jersey. Brennan1234567890 (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely covered in the news, and while the magnitude may have only been 4.8, it was still the strongest in 240 years. People will definitely remember it in ten years. Sadustu Tau (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Couldn't make up my mind about retention but if it does, please include this to List of earthquakes in 2024. Borgenland (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only earthquakes of magnitude 6 or above are included, unless they result in significant damage and/or casualties. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. That brings something up Aaron I need your opinion on. I made a page about a recent earthquake that happened today in Japan that caused 7 injuries and some damage, but it got moved to list of earthquakes in 2024 because a user by the name of @Dora the Axe-plorer said that "earthquakes in Japan are all too common, a moderately damaging 6 isn't notable enough for an article. This article is also poorly sourced." The poorly sourced part I was updating here and there, but I wanted your opinion. I just don't want my work going down the drain for nothing :( LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dora on whether we need a separate article for this one, actually. You can always copy your own work to relevant pages! (Note that you need to do some stuff if copying other 'pedians' work, but you don't need to for your own work) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Will do. LeSwiss1886 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeSwiss1886 I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia and welcome to the project. The recent Japan earthquake don't meet the criteria for a standalone article. Actually, we have a list dedicated for article requests here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Requested articles and you may start an article from the redlinks. Cheers! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if am article isn't ready, you can prepare it under the Draft: namespace or your user pages first before moving it. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This definitely recieved significant in depth coverage as its location makes this earthquake rare. WP:WAX is also a poor argument to make. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a New Jersey resident myself I felt this when it occurred, and as noted by many here it received widespread media coverage particularly due to its rare occurrence. Additionally it was the strongest in two centuries in NJ as well from what I read. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Earthquakes are relatively rare events in the Northeast. This article can serve as a historical record of this specific event, documenting the date, magnitude, location, and any notable effects. This can be valuable for future reference and understanding historical seismic activity in the region.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: partly because none of the policies or essays cited actually apply as far as I can see - ten-year test is not policy and does not seem to suggest something has to be equally notable in ten years; WP:NOTNEWS has a series of bullet points listed, none of which seem to apply to events like this. I'm not aware of a policy stating that earthquakes need to cause death to receive articles, and the last part is what is discussed as being irrelevant in WP:WAX/WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Thus, I see no reason to delete it, but also Alansohn and LeSwiss1886 provide good rationale for a keep. Tduk (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received tons of coverage and was rare seismic event in the region.

Perfecnot (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the next person here should just SNOW keep instead if they know how to do it. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has been a while since I have contributed to Wikipedia regularly (I might have known how to quickly implement User:Aaron Liu's suggestion a few years ago. I'm not sure why the initiator of this thinks the existence of this article violates the ten-year rule; this is the most significant earthquake to impact the New York City area since the stronger 2011 Virginia earthquake nearly thirteen years ago. The next time there is a significant earthquake in the area, this quake (perhaps instead of the Virginia quake) will certainly be referenced and remembered. Having lived in an earthquake-prone area as well as in New York, it is quite obvious to me why a similar earthquake in Japan would not be notable while this one is. Not that similar earthquakes even exist in Japan; the geology of the eastern US makes causes relatively minor earthquakes like this to be felt over a much wider area of hundreds of kilometers from the epicenter, hence the wide attention this event has received. LawClement (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This received significant coverage in numerous highly notable sources and easily passes the notability test.--LadybugStardust (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mihkel Poll[edit]

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

~~I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per e.g. [3] (postimees.ee) and https://www.emic.ee/mihkel-poll --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cursory search turns up Postimees articles here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Õhtuleht articles, here and here. Eesti Rahvusringhääling article here. Eesti Ekspress article here, Kroonika article here. Eesti Päevaleht article here. A press release/article from the Office of the President of Estonia here. A detailed entry at the IX International Stasys Vainiūnas Competition for Pianists and Chamber Ensembles here, etc. I don't think the nominator did a very thorough WP:BEFORE. ExRat (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent responses above. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 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 merge‎ to 1945 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time: Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1945 Canadian federal election, which is can accomodate it without the need for a WP:SPLIT. Reywas92^Talk 23:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 15:59, 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 merge‎ to 1958 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time: Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1958 Canadian federal election, which is quite short and can accomodate it without the need for a WP:SPLIT. Reywas92^Talk 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:02, 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 merge‎ to 1980 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time: Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1980 Canadian federal election, which is quite short and can accomodate it without the need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 23:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a valid SPLIT, but the parent article is short enough to contain the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robson Stevens[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional footballer, played in the Super League, previously had more sources.Fleets (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of meeting GNG, which is required for all athletes. I do not see any additional sources in the page history. Simply being a professional footballer is not a valid notability criterion. JoelleJay (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Merely claiming that he is or was a "professional footballer" is insufficient. Where are these sources? Tony (talk) 11:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per norm Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 1949 Canadian federal election. Consensus here shows Merge to be the least objectionable result. Owen× ☎ 20:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also wp:not. Only "Stats only" sources. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I did this for 4 of these articles at the same time: Opinion polling for the 1958 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1980 Canadian federal election, Opinion polling for the 1949 Canadian federal election and Opinion polling for the 1945 Canadian federal election North8000 (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Every single other election with available polling in Canadian history has a similar page, with a similar scope of sources. If they are to be deleted, it would have to be up to the 2021 election, and the practice in most elections has been to have a polling page. CharlotteWhitton (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm baffled why this was created as a stand-alone article rather than within 1949 Canadian federal election, which is quite short and can accomodate it easily. The practice is to include polling and to have a separate page only if length warrants a WP:SPLIT. Reywas92^Talk 23:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. We only need a separate opinion polling article for an election if there are, or are likely to be, a large number of polls to include. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Reywas92. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:02, 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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 20:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dia Davina[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dia Davina

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

Unable to see why this person is notable. Many tags been here for years. Seaweed (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article appears abandoned and the sources do not appear to establish WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR. No significant coverage is demonstrated. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing else to add MaskedSinger (talk) 08:26, 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. Owen× ☎ 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest structures in the Commonwealth of Nations[edit]

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

Subject doesn't seem to meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping is not discussed in secondary sources. Randam (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not hard to look at whatever respective country articles you want to compare; there's no indication the Commonwealth has anything to do with skyscrapers. Reywas92^Talk 22:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reywas92. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly we won't create a List of tallest structures in the BRICS]. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per NOTDIR. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:40, 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. Owen× ☎ 20:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nek Muhammad Shaikh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clearly does not meet WP:NPROF Flounder fillet (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Flounder fillet (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. samee converse 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good catch! fails WP:GNG as well. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- the only citation for the notability of this assistant professor is a run-of-a-mill list of awards given by the university to its profs. WP does lack articles on prominent Pakistani and other South Asian academics, so we should move more slowly here when evaluating, but based on the article there isn't enough to pass the average professor test. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG/ WP:NPROF.Southati (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mere stub with two poor-quality citations. I did some cursory searches of my own and was unable to find anything noteworthy. Apparently fails WP:PROF as well as WP:GNG. X (talk) 19:37, 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. czar 12:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia De La Rama[edit]

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

This one is sort of on the edge here but, after a search, I found one article (an opinion) online, in addition to the articles here which seem to only make references to her in passing (as the wife of Sukarno). She does seem to notable for appearing in two films but in secondary roles. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [4]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [5] [6]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Keep: this, this, this and this should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I saw these articles during my search, but again, they almost all refer to her in the context of being Sukarno's wife outside of the Philstar article, which has a disclaimer on it that it cannot vouch for the original source (this isn't to say it's bad, but verifying the orginal source, to make sure it isn't paid coverage should probably be done). The three newspaper articles ~~are WP:LOCALCOVERAGE, so~~ I'm not sure they qualify for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:AUD applies to companies, and requires at least one source that is at least regional in coverage. The articles in the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulletin should be enough to pass that. The Historia article also discusses her film career. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem here is that these articles again only seem to cover her in the context of being Sukarno's wife, which still doesn't fix the WP:1E issue. You were right on WP:LOCALCOVERAGE tho, I will strike that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The Philstar and the Historia articles both discuss her film career, which I feel is enough to show that BLP1E doesn't apply. Additionally, she probably has SIGCOV in offline sources. The Philstar article points to a magazine article from 1956, long before she'd married Sukarno. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:05, 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!} 17:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as a film actress with multiple roles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources presented above. Svartner (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see three sources that meet GNG, (Tulsa, Honolulu, and Philstar) - more is presented than just being Sukarno's wife, so not just 1E. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:21, 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 WP:SNOW keep. Consensus is clear, and further extension of the discussion is highly unlikely to lead to a different outcome. BD2412 T 02:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Wikipedia has discrete articles because each subject can be specified. How then can we write about an unspecified everything? Who has written where about to what "everything" might refer? My BEFORE search became quite impossible. Much of this article re-states "everything" as relates to philosophy and physics, each of which we already have articles on. The un-cited scope section only restates this bifurcation between science and philosophy, providing nothing new that wasn't covered in prior articles. We already have an entry in Wiktionary for this word. We already have a disambiguation page for Everything. This page is superfluous: somebody's gag to get an April Fools' DYK. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Science. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When taking everything together, subject is notable. Having difficulty writing content is not a reason to delete the article, and I think there has been a substantial effort in doing so here, and it has been done previously for similar topics such as Something and Nothing. I agree there is some redundant material that can be deleted here, because readers can go to their main articles for more information, but there still is enough important material here to justify keeping the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikael Häggström: It's not a difficulty in writing, it's a lack of source material which begets a lack of notability. Also, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an argument to make. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. I would suggest a redirect to universe. The article is effectively a dictionary definition padded out with some concepts that use the word 'everything'. The actual subject (all that exists/ all of space and time) is covered in universe. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation with three entries 1) theory of everything 2) theory of everything (philosophy) 3) external link to Wiktionary "everything". Not notable beyond its use as a word as shown by the refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG because the concept of "everything" has received philosophical attention separate from that covered by theory of everything (philosophy). One aspect of that seems to be linguistical: what is denoted when someone refers to "everything"? This is content that belongs on this page and not any of the other pages mentioned above.

Williamson, Timothy (2003). "Everything". Philosophical Perspectives. 17: 415–465. ISSN 1520-8583.
Krämer, Stephan. "Everything, and Then Some". Mind. 126 (502): 499–528. doi:10.1093/mind/fzv187.
Cartwright, Richard L. (1994). "Speaking of Everything". Noûs. 28 (1): 1–20. doi:10.2307/2215917. ISSN 0029-4624.
Priest, Graham; Gabriel, Markus (2022-09-15). Everything and Nothing. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-5095-3748-8.
Overstreet, Maryann; Yule, George (2002-06-01). "The metapragmatics of and everything". Journal of Pragmatics. 34 (6): 785–794. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(01)00036-4. ISSN 0378-2166.

Jfire (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion, this is a core topic. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources provided by Jfire are mostly on unrestricted quantification but definitely go beyond that too, expecially the book by Graham Priest and Markus Gabriel. Enough there to show GNG is met. Shapeyness (talk) 10:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it could definitely do with improvements and much better sourcing I think this passes WP:GNG. KylieTastic (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to divided opinion. Not sure we can find a closer willing to delete Everything on the English Wikipedia (jk!)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is a pretty good candidate for a WP:BCA. I agree that writing an article on a concept as all-encompassing as, well, everything is going to be challenging, but we shouldn't delete an article just because it's challenging to write. At worst this should be a dab if it's truly not possible to write a BCA, but generally when the covered subjects are philosophy and science there's enough overlap to justify a full article. Psychastes (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EVERYTHING!
I think this should be kept as it provides more than just a dictionary definition. Yes, it mostly leads/refers to other pages. I don't think that accounts for any notability hurdles. In my view, the argument that "Everything" mostly serves as a gateway to other topics can't be a valid reason for deletion. Plenty of other Wikipedia articles function similarly, acting as hubs that provide context and direct readers to more detailed information elsewhere. Plus, the existence of articles like "Something" and "Nothing" is there (can't be sure that someone won't AFD those as well...), and they just show abstract concepts can be covered, even if they're challenging to define concisely.
Sure, "Everything" might not fit neatly into a single article, given its vast scope. But that's precisely why it's important to have a dedicated page for it. Even discarding that angle, the fact that the word everything has been widely used throughout history to point towards manier topics, itself warrants notability - Or its ambiguity, the lackluster characteristics of functioning a definition, itself can be notable. X (talk) 19:46, 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 redirect‎ to Survey of India. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superintending Surveyor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, nonnotable government position. Contested PROD. I don't think a redirect is the way to go, since "superintending surveyor" seems like a generic position. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surveyor general appears to be the generic position, see [7] ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 11 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!} 17:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Survey of India, where the position is already mentioned, merging any content in if necessary. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survey of India as WP:ATD suggested in my deprod rationale. Doesn't seem to conflict with surveyor titles used outside India. ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now have no opposition to a redirect to Survey of India. I thought this was a generic position, but I guess I was wrong. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

Was BLPPROD'd but not PROD'd so I'm closing this as a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim El Moallem[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources. The first pop-up on my search were this which started convincing me but later created doubt as I could not find anymore sources, especially from independent of the subject than just press releases. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Arabic article contains a lot more material which probably amounts to a claim of notability, but none of it is sourced. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G11. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Q Ventures[edit]

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

Promotional and no sources are reliable. ~ Dictionary (chat) 14:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About to tag it with G11 but you took my words out. Speedy delete as promotional. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 14:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @ToadetteEdit. I will tag it for G11. ~ Dictionary (chat) 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What can I do, to make it not promotional.

My client wants Wikipedia page for his company Article - Gregory Romano (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promo. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a promo, because uh yeah Jesus, that page plus the admission of guilt here Claire 26 (talk) 14:51, 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 merge‎ to Maldives–United Arab Emirates relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Maldives, Abu Dhabi[edit]

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

This new embassy doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:NBUILDING. All the sources are not independent from the subject (the Republic of Maldives and the UAE) or don't cover the subject of the embassy in depth, with most information being a content fork from Maldives–United Arab Emirates relations, to which this article could redirect. The only supplemental source I managed to dig up is this one, and it's only trivial coverage. Wikipedia is not meant to act as simple directory of embassies. Pilaz (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Maldives, and United Arab Emirates. Pilaz (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the supplied sources are primary. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, PRIMARY and GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Maldives–United Arab Emirates relations: some useful sources and material here, but not enough for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 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 23:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kompella Madhavi Latha[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, announcment of Candidate does not make a person notable. Grabup (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Grabup (talk) 13:13, 7 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) 14:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Bhartya Janata Party candidate for the upcoming election. If successful, he will automatically meet NPOL qualifications. If not his significance will need to be demonstrated through multiple R/sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sk1728 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Keep - Passes WP:GNG criteria. Plenty of sources discussing her biography in detail with her being the main topic. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 10:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your assertion. The primary focus of these sources appears to be the nomination for the election, rather than solely on her. Grabup (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify so that the article can return to articlespace if she wins. Perhaps some of the references at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kompella_Madhavi_Latha&oldid=1218871643 could be restored. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article should be removed. According to the guidelines outlined in WP:NPOL, the individual has not been elected to any political position or taken on any political responsibilities. Obtaining an election ticket or receiving media coverage does not automaticallycooferr notability on an individual. The subject may meet the "general notability guidelines" (WP:GNG), as it has received significant coverage from reputable sources. It is worth noting that there has been an unexpected surge in media attention following her BJP nomination. Despite her two decades of involvement in charity work, she has also been associated with Triple Talaq and fighting for the cause of women, which has received little attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddingboffin (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to US Souf. ✗plicit 11:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 1955 Stadium (El Oued)[edit]

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

Stub article about a non notable football stadium. I have redirected it to the parent club US Souf where all the info already exists but the creator objects. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to US Souf as it is primarily a football stadium; it is not even mentioned at El Oued. Giant Snowman 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosamund Else-Mitchell[edit]

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

Fairly random person; article written by an admitted paid editor. Biruitorul ^Talk 12:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews says it all. Fails WP:BIO and possible promotional article. LibStar (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Educator did education things, then became publisher and did publishing things. Lacks WP:SIGCOV references, so fails WP:ANYBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The EdTech Digest top 100 movers in education/technology mention gave me a minute to pause, because it sounds like a significant feat. But I can't find any evidence online that EdTech Digest is itself notable (or anything but an advertising platform). Without that independent evidence of notability, I need to agree with the Delete votes above. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (forgot to sign. date here is wrong)[reply]
Delete Article subject fails WP:GNG, most of the references are PDF links & I also don't think linkedin can be use as a reference as well.--Meligirl5 (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't agree more especially with the Linkedin! MaskedSinger (talk) 08:29, 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCIB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Arkansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking significant in-depth coverage to satisfy notability requirements. AusLondonder (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant references. It won't pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 20:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wardrobe malfunction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per [8]

" section comprised entirely WP:BLP problems, original research, low-quality sources, WP:NOTTABLOID problems, etc."

"actually, this seems sufficiently well covered in the main article about the origin of the term. there's almost no good content here that isn't already there" Andy Dingley (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMHO, this is a keep. Improvements are always welcome, but notability of the term seems to be well established. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 14:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term may have originated at a Super Bowl event, but it has certainly since then become part of common modern English language and as such notable on its own outside of the original Super Bowl event where it was first used. This is possibly a WP:SNOWBALL. It looks like it even made its way into intentional usage for fashion as outlined by this article. Raladic (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, where this subject is already thoroughly covered in a more encyclopedic way. As a separate article, this becomes primarily a coatrack for tabloid garbage.
We have two sections, "etymology" (see also WP:DICDEF, and again how it's already covered in the main superbowl article) and a list of salacious examples that combine WP:BLP violations with original research (and the tabloid stuff). It starts with a full paragraph sourced just to a blog that doesn't even mention "wardrobe malfunction". Then we have e.g. In July 2012, when Australian model Miranda Kerr at one point leaned over to buckle her son into a car seat, she inadvertently revealed her thong to create a whale tail. The Huffington Post described this episode as a "wardrobe malfunction". High quality Wikipediaing right there.
There's no question this term became widely used after the Superbowl, which is why that article devotes so much space to it. The question isn't WP:N, and any keep !vote based just on "it's notable" isn't responding to the deletion argument. The reasons for deletion are on one hand WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOT, and on the other hand the reality that there's nothing of value to include in an stand-alone encyclopedia article that isn't a WP:BLP disaster. Even when filled with BLP and OR problems, we have people repeatedly reinstating the material. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is questionable content, then we have different means to address that, such as removal, editorial templates or adding page protections if it particularly happens from newer editors.

But the concept of a wardrobe malfunction is notable on its own and the term was coined at the Super Bowl, but since then has found widespread usage, including whole Books using the title that can be incorporated into the article, or how the phrase has evolved it's use since introduction, such as this Wall Street Journal article on some new MLB jerseys or this NewYorker article talking about the longevity of the phrase and how it has become a pop-culture thing of its own, long after the original incident. Or this marieclaire article talking about the history of the concept and bringing it all the way back to Napoleon.

Or this Wardrobe malfunction: Case studies of disability and clothing at the threshold of older adulthood. research article in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment.

This was all just a quick 10 minute of searching to find that there is plenty of content that can be incorporated into the article that has nothing to do with tabloid journalism.

All of this is not covered (and should not be) at the Super Bowl article since that moment in time was just the inception of a term for the concept that had obviously long existed, but just didn't have a defined name prior to it.

Interestingly even, the term appears to have started usage before the Superbowl incident as the google ngram data shows usage in books prior to 2004, so it might very well be that the term was coined prior to the Super bowl, but just found its widespread adoption into the common english vernacular then. Raladic (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Raladic, this is a fairly common phrase used to describe a broad situation which reoccurs in society Claire 26 (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Popular culture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: I've added a link to this discussion from WP:BLPN. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The term is certainly notable beyond the incident it was coined for (the term is widely used in the UK and nobody here knows what a superbowl is) but the content of the article is problematic. I'm not sure it's possible to write a decent encyclopaedia article on the subject beyond its meaning and origin and it will inevitably be bulked out by an example farm. Perhaps a soft redirect to Wiktionary might be the best thing? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Instances" section is a predictable sack of trivial bovine feces that plagues far too many Wikipedia articles ("in popular culture"), but crappy articles was never a criteria for deletion, unfortunately. Example cruft magnets like this must be tended judiciously lest every nip slip that gets 2 mentions would be crammed in. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This isn't a notability issue, and previous Keep !votes seem to have assumed that notability is a sufficient, rather than necessary, condition for an article. Moreover, WP:GNG lists two necessary conditions for a topic to merit an article: (i) notability, and (ii) non-exclusion under WP:NOT. We can agree that the topic is notable without agreeing it should have an article. In my view, this article violates WP:NOT/WP:BLP:

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 and Wikipedia is not written in news style.
WP:NOTGOSSIP:
Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

Insofar as WP:BLP is concerned, I think the topic – when people have (inadvertently) displayed their intimate parts – is lurid, failing (i) the concerns for balance and attack pages presented in WP:BLP, and (ii) the policy's presumption in favour of privacy (cf. WP:AVOIDVICTIM). While the term's etymology might merit an article that could extend beyond WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I entirely agree with HJ Mitchell's concern that I'm not sure it's possible to write a decent encyclopaedia article on the subject beyond its meaning and origin and it will inevitably be bulked out by an example farm. A redirect to Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy seems inappropriate given the wide range of the term's applications. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Raladic. Raladic has also demonstrated the existence of additional sources to improve the article. If the topic is notable, but the article is poorly written, then it would be overkill to delete the entire article. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the article is poorly written – it's that the subtopic (namely, examples of wardrobe malfunctions) is unencyclopedic. If an article on the topic (wardrobe malfunction) cannot be written without it including the subtopic, or if the topic without the subtopic doesn't meet our notability requirements, then the entire article should go, even if it is written exceptionally well. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEXIST, the sourcing proven by Raladic demonstrates that the topic is notable, even without the subtopic. It is clear that this topic can be written without including the subtopic and can be expanded with the sources shown by Raladic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick before shows this term is used in the titles of several academic works. This has not been mentioned by the nom, and therefore I conclude that WP:BEFORE was not done here. (Note that my keep vote does not mean that I don't agree that the article may need a substantial rewrite...). PS. Side note: relevant Commons category is "commons:Category:Accidental nudity". Which name should be used is something to discuss, but at minimum accidental nudity, which redirects here, is also a term that we should BEFORE before any serious deletion discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ? The nomination just quotes my edit summaries when redirecting. Mentions in titles of academic works would be relevant if the deletion rationales were based on notability, which they were not. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the event, the term has become part of popular culture, important for understanding aspects of culture. PuppyMonkey (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is clearly established and the term is almost everyday use in internet. The hits on the article (~15k per month) suggests that. Also, deletion is not cleanup. Tagging can be done for cleaning up, not AfD. This is almost a SNOW. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:34, 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 11:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Femi Babatunde[edit]

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

Article created by a now permanently banned disruptive account that became notorious for adding dubious content to the project. Other than the one source already cited, I can't find anything about this footballer at all. Unless significant coverage is found, Babatunde fails WP:GNG and probably even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which requires at least one decent source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 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)} 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with all of the above MaskedSinger (talk) 08:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC. Agree with nom. Anwegmann (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a football player that needs more source to establish notability. The current state lacks SIGCOV and researches revolves other people's ID that may be 'Femi Babatunde', a notable Nigerian typical name. It's on other nire to day the article fails almost all the criteria for WP:SPORTSBIO, WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. As noted in the nom, likely hoax (or at least improperly researched) article by a banned editor. BD2412 T 15:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odeh Ogar[edit]

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

My own research indicates that he never played for Nigeria. He is not mentioned at National Football Teams for 2006 nor any other year for Nigeria. Given the sort of players in that squad at the time, I imagine Ogar would be quite well known and easy to find sources for if the claim were true. Even the unreliable Transfermarkt doesn't claim him as an international. More importantly, I can't find any WP:SIGCOV on Ogar and the article was created by a now permanently banned user that was well known for adding unsourced and dubious content across the project, which has taken years to undo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 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)} 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I once tried to create article for him but couldn't find any reliable sources which signifies lack of verifiability and notability.Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing here. Easily fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a football player that lacks citations for SIGCOV and GNG. Seeing the career or infobox, I researched only to confirm that WP:NEXIST is not for the article. Lacks notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:THREE. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:12, 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 11:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Defenses[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. No remotely usable sources. I initially PRODed but on double-checking the deletion log it's not eligible. – Teratix ₵ 10:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. – Teratix ₵ 10:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be any reliable sources available about this company. The sources I found were actually about a different company with a similar name (Paramount Group). Gedaali (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: There is nothing usable from my WP:BEFORE search and no significant coverage. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:23, 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 11:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Roasso Kumamoto season[edit]

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

Similar case to 2008 Vegalta Sendai season, 2008 Shonan Bellmare season and 2008 Ehime FC season. People looking for information about this club or season can easily find it at 2008 J.League Division 2 or Roasso Kumamoto. I can't find any indication that this season is sufficiently notable enough on its own to require a separate article. The copyright infringement case that occurred this season is already mentioned in the main article and, in fact, is not even covered in this sub-article. In my view, this shell of an 'article' should be deleted with no prejudice against creating again in the future if anyone can prove that it has WP:SIGCOV and requires being split from the parent article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 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)} 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – For the similars AfD. Svartner (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a mess, WP:TNT it. Govvy (talk) 19:09, 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 11:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Toma[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:SPORTBASIC #5 as well as WP:GNG. I found a passing mention in Gekisaka and a transfer announcement from Hamamatsu University, the latter being non-independent due to being the university that he attended and played football for. I can't find any independent significant coverage of him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 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)} 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – His JA Wikipedia is a stub despite being quite longer. While searching on Google with romaji keyword (even Yūki Tōma and Tōma Yūki) might found other men with this name than this soccer player, failing WP:V, searching with his name in kanji (東間勇気) on Google needs to be demonstrated for this article to be kept. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources, fails in WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Spiderone and also seems to fail WP:GNG Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:00, 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. ✗plicit 11:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel (footballer, born July 1989)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP and my own searches did not yield any WP:SIGCOV. According to Soccerway, his Brazilian football career was very brief and we only seem to have the 1 cup appearance while playing in Japan, which is a very weak notability claim. My own searches yielded only Gekisaka, a very brief transfer announcement and Veertien, which is neither significant nor independent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 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)} 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- It fails WP: GNG and there is no enough reliable sources to establish his notability.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 17:52, 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. ✗plicit 11:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eni Malaj[edit]

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

Former footballer and suspected drug dealer but doesn't seem to have achieved notability for either. Despite searching for a while, I can't find anything other than database sources about his football career, which is unsurprising given that he had a brief career in the 2nd tier of Albania and little else. His career seemed to stop after he was arrested, along with 24 others, for drug trafficking offences. Gazeta Shqip is the source that confirms Malaj's arrest and that he was a former goalkeeper for Tirana but gives no further coverage. Malaj does not seem to meet WP:GNG from his playing career or otherwise and the coverage of the crime is way short of the requirements listed at WP:PERP for a stand-alone article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 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)} 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom explains it rather well. Anwegmann (talk) 02:45, 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. ✗plicit 11:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatjon Muhameti[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced BLP on a former footballer, who had a very brief playing career, and has most recently been a youth coach. Newsport has an article on him but the majority of the post is copied from Muhameti's social media post. Likewise, Bold News is based entirely off Muhameti's Facebook post too. Telegrafi is an independent source in this case but it only mentions him twice so isn't WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 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)} 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously not notable by all measures. Anwegmann (talk) 02:45, 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!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation True Promise (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary dab page per WP:ONEOTHER, and since there are only two possible targets. It would be best to just add a hatnote on both articles. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Disambiguations, Iran, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The problem is that both articles are called by names that are not the official name of the operation. That's why I thought it would be more correct to establish this page. Galamore (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "WP:NONEOTHER". Only one of the two entries is called True Promise. The other is called Truthful Promise. (Then redirect Operation True Promise, not this page, to 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:ONEOTHER. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:29, 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 11:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Lithuania[edit]

(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 claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Lithuania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 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!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This doesn't pass the criteria established by the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Konyaaltı as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of Antalya[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for geographic features (specifically WP:NBUILD). sources in article are primary or unreliable (daily sabah being a government-owned website, so rather tentative). search for sources finds similar unreliable sources or promotions for tourism to antalya. ltb d l (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Travel and tourism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously not notable on its own. Aintabli (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Konyaaltı, where the ferris wheel is located, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I agree with ltbdl's analysis of the sourcing as not being sufficient. I find the Daily Sabah article to contribute to notability but it is the only such source in the article. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 11:25, 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!} 07:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails in WP:NBUILD. Svartner (talk) 05:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Heart of Antalya is currently mentioned at Antalya#Main sights. ltbdl (talk · contribs) and Svartner (talk · contribs), would you support a merge/redirect to Konyaaltı or Antalya#Main sights per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 09:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging Aintabli (talk · contribs), would you consider a merge/redirect instead of deletion? Cunard (talk) 08:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Konyaaltı: per Cunard as an ATD. Merging would be unbalanced in the target article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finvasia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was soft deleted in 2022 and recreated since. On its face there appears to be valid sourcing, but I am finding only brief mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA press and churnalism, or otherwise unreliable sources. Nothing that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. I was initially going to suggest a merge into ZuluTrade but a cursory look was unable to find anything showing that page is notable either. CNMall41 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Here is an example of the sourcing. I removed and then added back so the discussion can run but you can see one is a press release and the other is a sponsored (or branded) post which was paid for. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had started removing the obviously paid placements and advertorials before I noticed CNMall41 had restored them to illustrate the promotional editing here; my apologies. The remaining material is brief mentions, PR, and some questionable sources. I was not able to find anything else in a brief search other than more very obvious paid placement. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These paid articles are not reliable at all, these articles are maybe paid published to create or support this page. Grabup (talk) 07:01, 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!} 07:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moesa Pancho[edit]

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

The tempo articles are advertisements, and the rest seem to be largely copies of that advertisement. Hence, seems to fail WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [9]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [10] [11]. And there also other notable sources from CNN and a book that was cited in the article [12] [13] 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 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!} 05:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First Intuition[edit]

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

Article is promotional and only relies on non-independent sources. Other sources on the net such as this and this are also self-published. Request delete per WP:ORGCRITE. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. AbsoluteWissen (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has been tagged for multiple issues for years without improvement. Little more than an advertisement. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. Created by an editor with virtually no other edits. AusLondonder (talk) 16:28, 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#October – December. ✗plicit 04:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008 Dera Ismail Khan bombing[edit]

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

One source only provided from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant content to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#October – December (considerations from our last 20 AfDs apply). PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2008#October – December based on recent AfD precident. ~Kvng (talk) 14:31, 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 04:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daraja Press[edit]

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

No independent sources about the publisher. Suggesting redirect to Firoze Manji. IgelRM (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article now meets the standards required to not be deleted. Grantennis (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the article now? Please advise if more sources are needed. Grantennis (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three independent sources about the publisher: AELAQ. “Daraja Press.” The Association of English-Language Publishers of Quebec, 2023. http://darajapress.com.

Alllitup.ca. “Daraja Press,” 2024. https://alllitup.ca/publishers/daraja-press/.

Radical Publishing Futures 5: Daraja Press, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_64q7S7IB-A.

Here are the books published by the publisher available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=%22Daraja+Press%22

Here are the mentions of Daraja Press on Archive.org: https://archive.org/search?query=%22Daraja+Press%22&sin=TXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 3, only Radical Publishing Futures is not a database etc and the podcast episode is an interview with the founder. IgelRM (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check now Grantennis (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book publisher - They are well known for their books. What are examples of sources from other publishers to substantiate relevance, that are not present here? It seems that the source requirements requested are incredibly high. If the sources provided so far are not enough, it would seem that most publishers releasing books primarily from minority authors from developing countries would be excluded from wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to convert the article into "List of books published by Daraja Press", but I am also uncertain if it fits the criteria. The Manji article describes the publisher and maybe it could also be expanded. What benefit to you think having a separate article has? IgelRM (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this IgelRM. This is an important book publisher for marginalised voices and ideas from around the world. At the moment most of the publishers on Wikipedia are only those that publish western authors or ideas related to western perspectives. Should those be the only publishers with their own articles on Wikipedia? Publishers, by definition promote their books and not their brand - that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be part of wikipedia but it means that when we make articles for them we need to recognize that the "sources" are going to be quite different. Do you see where I'm coming from? Eager to know your thoughts. Grantennis (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think, but Wikipedia as an encyclopedia unfortunately can only reflect what gets covered in reliable sources and not what one believe is important. IgelRM (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to your previous point on sources and your question - "What benefit to you think having a separate article has?". The benefit is(, in addition to above,) having independent presses well represented. Would it be helpful to add sources to that point? Like:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/07/why-american-publishing-needs-indie-presses/491618/ or https://www.economist.com/culture/2023/11/27/small-publishers-are-sweeping-the-booker-and-nobel-prizes . These smaller publishers promote their books, not themselves. They are extremely important for writers and readers; providing a hugely important societal benefit from behind the scenes. Grantennis (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if sources have systemic bias, we have to reflect those sources. A "List of books published by Daraja Press" might be better as a category. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 14:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to the main article. Please advise. Grantennis (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We need more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a number of sources now Grantennis (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NORG. I see only one source that might come close to meeting NORG requirements, [14]. Not enough. Jfire (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many high quality sources on the article. It's not clear what your referring to. This is normal news-coverage for a publisher. Grantennis (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grantennis, high quality sources are those that provide significant coverage and are not passing mentions. It's not enough to know that a subject exists and has been mentioned, they need to be the subject of newspaper or magazine articles, books, stories on mainstream news websites. Which are the top 3 sources that provide this kind of significant coverage? Because it's not about how many sources there are, it's about quality and depth of their coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article currently presents 33 sources, some of which are academic, such as Google Scholar. The user @Grantennis seems committed to updating and maintaining the article in accordance with the project guidelines, I believe that the deletion in this case would not be applicable. Svartner (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources. Only one of them even comes close to the requirements of WP:NORG. The "Google Scholar" source is a search results page, and doesn't help the notability case (WP:GHITS). Some of the books published by the press may meet WP:NBOOK, but that doesn't make the press notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. Jfire (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source assessment. Sources beyond these are all for individual publications of the press, so as I've said they don't matter for notability purposes. Jfire (talk) 05:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Thiong’o, Ngũgĩ wa (August 15, 2023)	"With permission from Daraja Press"			✘ No
Pradhan, Pritika (August 3, 2022)			Founder is quoted	✘ No
Hudon, Roxane (June 1, 2021)	~ Publisher's association, Daraja is a member			~ Partial
CL (October 28, 2020)				✘ No
Repeat of #1				? Unknown
AELAQ	Subject-provided copy			✘ No
Fallon, Helen (2019)			Mention	✘ No
Malec, Jennifer (August 6, 2018)			Mention	✘ No
Yamada, Seiji (November 9, 2020)		WP:COUNTERPUNCH	Mention	✘ No
Amazon.com				✘ No
Google Scholar				✘ No
RPA (5 September 2020)			Member in list	✘ No
AELAQ (14 February 2012)			Member in list	✘ No
RBC			Member in list	✘ No
LPG			Member in list	✘ No
MRO	Self-published			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete as per the source analysis, none of the sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability of this company. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the source table above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 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 keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matroska[edit]

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

File format. No independent coverage whatsoever. Tagged since 2021 - Altenmann >talk 04:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't entirely understand why deletion is a more reasonable reaction that maintaining the request for additional secondary sources. mkv files have become an overwhelmingly popular portable video container, I worry that if the article is deleted it will just come back in a sorrier state later as its vague continual cultural relevancy encourages contributors who notice its MIA status and restore it. JohnnyJ7766 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the nomination, the article was tagged since 2021. 3 years is plenty of time, isn't it? If you vouch to work on the article, it can me moved to the draft space (WP:DRAFTIFY), where you can continue to work on it until it becomes acceptable. - Altenmann >talk 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG based on books listed here: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Matroska. There is sufficient significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet the guideline. The article relies too heavily on sources affiliated with the subject, but that can be fixed later and does not affect the subject's notability. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree, while the article can and should be improved, and independent sources added, there is no reason to just delete it. There are relevant sources spanning different domains (https://www.lavanguardia.com/andro4all/tecnologia/como-reproducir-archivos-mkv-en-android-todas-las-formas). CasuarioAlmeriense (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant independent coverage in multiple books, scholary sources, and mainstream publications. DigitalIceAge (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and even expand, maybe?). When I was learning about downloading Torrents (ie movies) using BitTorrent, nearly all the movie files are saved in the .MKV format. I absolutely found Wikipedia useful in figuring it all out (I'm no multimedia expert!). Without somewhere to look up info about .MKV files I'd have been lost...(!) G6cid (talk) 23:36, 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 04:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lanam, Indiana[edit]

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

So, here we have another way to create a spurious GNIS entry. I will begin by saying that none of the aerials give the slightest confidence that there was ever a settlement here: there's an isolated building shown on GMaps, but you don't have to go very far back before it's an unbroken expanse of forest. So, we go to the topos. When you get back a ways, they do show a "LANAM" label, but it's in the physical feature font, running at an angle. And if you look around you'll see a lot of similar labels, many of them marking "ridges". And indeed in searching I find a number references to "Lanam Ridge", including the road that runs though the area. Apparently either the "ridge" part of the label either got lost or was for some reason omitted, and then some GNIS map reader missed the font clue and turned it into a "populated place". There is a "Lanam Cemetery" a ways to the east, at least according to Find-a-Grave, but I can't find a connection of it to anything (which is pretty typical), and Lanam appears to be a common enough name that it accounts for most hits. At any rate, if there was a Lanam town, it wasn't here. Mangoe (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's research. It looks like at one point there may have been a post office near the site named "Oak Farm"[15], but I couldn't find any maps that mark the location as an actual town or settlement. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Locals know this as Lanam Ridge, and this should get moved there if not deleted. This is a neighborhood of residents of the ridge. I can't find any one article gives the nature of the place, except this [16] which is less specific than I would like. But I do believe that this is just another neighborhood in Brown county.James.folsom (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Daystar Television Network stations#Michigan. ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUHQ-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations#Michigan as an ATD. Nate • (chatter) 18:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above No significant coverage in Grand Rapids paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Above article (List of Daystar Television Network stations#Michigan): Per Sammi and Nate, it's kinda of an alternative to deletion. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 19:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Daystar Television Network stations#Michigan: This article is definitely a remnant of the considerably looser inclusion standards of 2005. If the station's supposed biggest claim to fame was "TV Mall", all of its other known programming were full-time national services (and a six-year revolving door of them before finally finding stability as a Daystar-owned transmitter), and significant coverage of the station does not exist, we don't need anything more than an ((R to list entry)). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 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 merge‎ to Westminster International University in Tashkent. Consensus is the rewrite fixed the content issues, but not the notability ones. Star Mississippi 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Academy of London[edit]

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

Contested PROD for not being uncontroversial (though not by me). Appears to be original research, possible redirect to Joseph Mifsud? IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. IgelRM (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources in the article provide SIGCOV. They are primary or press releases with no depth of coverage (Azerbaijan, check if recognized, GCU, opening of new), unreliable forums (houzz, diplomacy.edu), or not even mentioned (US News, Guardian). Nothing better found in my searching. We don't have to dig into the controversy or decide on its legitimacy to determine that it's not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I agree none of the current sources provide RS SIGCOV. I found this article in the Stirling Uni student newspaper [17] and this in the BBC [18]. The first may not be reliable and the latter might not be enough SIGCOV. There is this Guardian article which arguably is RS SIGCOV [19]. In any case all the coverage seems to be in connection with Joseph Mifsud. The Guardian article also makes clear the LAD no longer exists as does the Brig piece. In that context, it seems most sensible to me to keep it as a redirect to Joseph Mifsud. Perhaps to a section on the LAD in that article? I'd be happy to create it. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems ill advised since there is no mention of Joseph Mifsud in Diplomatic Academy of London and no mention of Diplomatic Academy of London in Joseph Mifsud. ~Kvng (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as WP:OR and per WP:TNT. The current article reads like an attack piece, and is full of errors which is why it should be deleted and not kept. The claims that these programs are not accredited is false. These are university departments inside respected research universities. There are several different university programs being confused, they are not the same program but multiple different university departments, many of them founded by the same academic, Nabil Ayad, who seems to have made a career setting up departments for UK research universities wanting to take in foreign students from outside the UK. The history here seems to have cobbled together these different non-affiliated programs (each university's department is separate to its own school) through a bunch of original research and spurious claims that are not cited to a reliable secondary sources. The London Academy of Diplomacy was a diplomatic studies department at the University of East Anglia for foreign students studying at the university and its diplomas are awarded through that institution. It closed in 2016.

As for the Diplomatic Academy of London. It is a respectable institution/department that was for a long time housed at the University of Westminster (and still is sort of). It's listed as graduate diplomatic studies program at the University of Westminster in Bulletin - Economic and Social Committee of the European Communities. 1992. p. 109., "Overseas". Pacific Research: A Periodical of the Peace Research Centre. 5–6. Australian National University: 41. 1992. It was absorbed into the Westminster International University in Tashkent which is part of the University of Westminster. (see Can the Prizes Still Glitter?: The Future of British Universitites in a Changing World. University of Buckingham Press. 2007. p. 194. ISBN 9780955464201. which lists the school as part of the Westminster International University in Tashkent in 2007.) I can't find a source, but I would imagine that it was absorbed into that school in 2002 when Westminster restructured it diplomatic/international studies programs when the Westminster International University in Tashkent was founded. As far as I can tell the school is still a department inside the WIUT and offers its courses to foreign students in London and is accredited as part of the WIUT through which its students receive both graduate and post-graduate degrees from the WIUT.

I found quite a lot of citations to publications by this organization, and coverage of some of their symposiums in reliable academic journals dating back as far is the mid 1990s. For example their symposium The Information Explosion : A Challenge for Diplomacy had coverage in The World Today,Volume 53, Issues 1-12 - page 158-159. The organization is listed as a reliable academic publisher in Behle, Sabine, ed. (1994). Publishers' International ISBN Directory/International ISBN Agency, Volume 1. K.G. Saur. p. 708. There's WP:SIGCOV in Demut, Andreas (ed.). Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen nach dem Fall des Eisernen Vorhangs?: Vorträge und Aufsätze der Konferenz über Neue Ost-West-Wanderungen als Folge der wirtschaftlichen und politischen Veränderungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Lit Verlag. p. 254-255. ISBN 9783825822224. The organization was also a partner with the United Nations for an Ocotber 25, 2002 symposium entitle The UN and the Media in War and Peace (see Ahmar, Moonis (ed.). Different Perceptions on Conflict Resolution Need for an Alternate Approach. Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi. p. 255. There's a lot more out there. All of this to say, we could have an article, but it's definitely not this article which is both factually wrong and a horribly unethical attack page.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep, although I am not typically a big fan of articles on individual university departments. I re-wrote the article to remove the OR. It's a stub. I also knocked off a stub on London Academy of Diplomacy. Pinging IgelRM, David Eppstein, The Herald, the article is vastly different now. 4meter4 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely rewritten about a different topic now (good work), although I am not certain of this departments notability. Though the AFD process is a bit of mess now, maybe the previous version should still be deleted. IgelRM (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM It's a small enough article that we could always redirect and merge to Westminster International University in Tashkent per WP:ATD. It would be fine as a subsection of that article.4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect/merge or outright delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the rewritten article to Westminster International University in Tashkent as suggested above. Thanks to 4meter4 for the rewrite. Jfire (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still fairly young, but based on this page they have little to show for. The Banner talk 18:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have sufficient notability to meet the WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Westminster International University in Tashkent: we have more than enough sources to establish verifiability, and do not need independent notability for a section in the target. The Delete !votes haven't presented any valid reason why the page shouldn't be allowed to stay as a redirect to a valid article. Owen× ☎ 20:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Junior College[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. The sources that i could find are either primary, or school/college databases. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Telangana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources and per nom, page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL RangersRus (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:3P, non DB sources found. The Government degree college opposite to it might have marginally more coverage. Sohom (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957. There's a consensus not to outright delete, but arguments for redirecting carry more P&G weight, in addition to being more numerous than the Keep ones. Owen× ☎ 20:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Sunfield tornado[edit]

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

I'm sorry, but this is getting out of hand. This article is WAY too short to be here and unless you have some way to expand it, the article should be deleted or redirected back to the main tornado outbreak article. Not every strong to violent tornado needs an individual article; please remember that. ChessEric 00:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957 where I think this event already has sufficient coverage. This is arguably an unnecessary fork of that article. BrigadierG (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a weird argument for keep, but my reasoning is a mix of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it passing WP:NEVENT. So obviously it passess NEVENT's lasting criteria with articles like this one 55 years after the tornado. But actually, the tornado is more notable than the overall outbreak and Wikipedia viewcounts tell us that. This tornado article has been viewed 4,800+ times since its creation in September 2023. The outbreak article has been viewed just over 4,000 times in the last year (April 2023 to March 2024). It is obvious people are specifically searching for this tornado over the outbreak associated with it. So in a weird way, the split article is the primary tornado from the outbreak. Article size for the tornado article is over 7,000 bytes while the 3-day tornado outbreak with 37 tornadoes is 53,000 bytes. There was a similar conversation (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS time) for the 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado, which was split from the 2002 Veterans Day weekend tornado outbreak. A third-party editor commented amid the content dispute (separate article or not) and determined it could be a separate article as it passed the criteria to be a stand-alone article. Now, in the last month, the tornado article was viewed nearly 400 times more than the outbreak article and also got to GA rank. Obviously, this article doesn't have GA potential due to the lack of information regarding the tornado, but nonetheless, it does pass the criteria for a stand-alone article. So I am very strongly opposed to a full deletion. My !vote should be seen as a full keep !vote unless consensus starts favoring another verdict. In the event of a consensus forming for a merge or delete, this !vote can be seen as a support for a merge (i.e. not opposed to a merge if consensus falls that direction). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sometimes OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments demonstrate a precedent rather than poorly justifying an unrelated article's retention, and Weather Event Writer seems to have it right. There is a general case for the tornado's individual notability (even decades on). Could a merge conversation conceivably take place? Sure. But this seems to be a strong enough topic to stand on its own from the broader outbreak. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to entry in Tornado outbreak sequence of December 18–20, 1957. I would have said "merge" but there appear to be major factual accuracy problems: the NWS report indicates that the tornado started a ways north of the town and went away from it, not into it; also I don't know why the intersection would be called the "wye" since it is a perfectly ordinary crossroads. It could be made into a separate entry within that article (as is the case for two of the tornadoes in the outbreak) but if so, the text needs to be researched anew. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: I am not sure what NWS report you are referring to? The entire NOAA report for the tornado can be seen on Wikisource (Wikisource: NCDC Climatological Data National Summary for the 1957 Sunfield tornado) and it clearly states, "Occurred at junction of highways 51 and 154. Small crossroads settlement at Sunfield "Y" wiped out. Very heavy destruction in small area. Several survisors took cover in buildings. Man remaining in open killed. Tornado moved east-northeastward." Could you link what NWS report you are seeing, because there is a chance it is a media report and not the official government reports. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's that NOAA report to which I refer. If you look at the map of the path and zoom out a bit, you can see Sunfield SSE of the touchdown point. Reviewing the other sources it seems clear to me that they were referring to damage at the intersection and then further east, not in the town itself. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Oh you mean the storm event database. Yeah, don't use the map. The map is not a representation of the tornado track. It just draws a straight line from the start to the end of the track. The 2013 El Reno tornado is a very good example of that straight line path drawn for those maps. NOAA produced an actual map of the tornadoes track (an image in the Wikipedia article), but if you look at the Storm Event Database report for it, it just draws the straight line. NOAA also says this just above the maps: "Note: The tornado track is approximate based on the beginning (B) and ending (E) locations. The actual tornado path may differ from a straight line."

Also just a side note, you can take a look at User:WeatherWriter/LLM Experiment 1 and User talk:WeatherWriter/LLM Experiment 1#Follow up with 32k version of GPT4, where myself and another editor actually used A.I. to basicaly fact-check and check the verifiability of the article. Both of us came to the same overall conclusion of it being verifiable and accurate based on the sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One extra note I wanted to mention, the Storm Event Database, while official as in from the government, is not the actual "official" report for the tornado. That comes from the "Climatological Data National Summary December 1957" paper released in 1958. Basically what is on Wikisource is the formally "official" report for the tornado. The other NOAA sources are official as they are from NOAA, but were made decades after the tornado in the internet era. NOAA discontinued the large paper-based official reports in November 2018 and from December 2018 to present, the Storm Event Database is the official location for tornado records. But the paper/PDF reports are official reports pre-December 2018. You can see these publications here and here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is all well and good, but again, when I read all these various sources, none of them says that the tornado went though Sunfield. They all say that the tornado touched down near the intersection, obliterated everything there, and proceeded ENE. The Benton News story is particularly detailed. You are spending too much time on what is an irrelevancy; regardless of which source you prefer, none of them says what the article claims they say. Sunfield itself was not touched by the tornado. Mangoe (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: Now that the accuracy issue is solved, would you reconsider your !vote, which was “redirect” with the sole explanation of the now fixed issue. I am not swaying, but even you have to admit it does pass WP:NEVENT and WP:LASTING, i.e. it meets all stand-alone article criteria. Plus, it gets more views than the outbreak overall does, indicating that it is potentially more notable than the outbreak. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Back as an unnecessary split. 108.6.176.12 (talk) 20:50, 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 01:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fragments of an Unknown Teaching[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2009. The composer does not have an article, which would indicate a lack of notability. Johnj1995 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. I found only a catalog/shopping site. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found two newspaper sources with brief mentions: [20], [21]. Not enough to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 19:22, 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 speedy delete‎ by Justlettersandnumbers per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) Annh07 (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Dark[edit]

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

One source here has no significant coverage, fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). ~ Dictionary (chat) 01:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion under criterion A7. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:49, 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. Favonian (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Dominic[edit]

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

No reliable sources cover DJ Dominic in significant. ~ Dictionary (chat) 01:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those information are not added yet at times goes by it will be added MICHAEL PEWEE (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, G5 and G11: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flex Liberia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ D. Pewee, etc. Also utterly non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Recreation of a page deleted at least 3 times by a WP:SPA that is likely a sockpuppet of the banned user:Flex Liberia due to a similar name and recreating this page. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Liberia, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Under A7, A11, G5, and G11, all of which are valid. Why two admins declined it under faulty reasoning, I'll never know. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion criteria are intentionally limited and specific, particularly A7. One admin declined to delete and I supported them when the same exact tags were reapplied to the article. If the page creator is identified as a confirmed sockpuppet, then CSD G5 would apply. This AFD looks like it will result in deletion, I don't see this situation as urgent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot seriously tell me with a straight face that this article isn't straight up spam by a user whose name is the same as a sock whose accounts have been blocked over fifty times. I respect you and all you do to ensure CSD is not carried out willy-nilly... but c'mon. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/snow delete. I mean, come on. Clear WP:DUCK socking, the sources are AI garbage, the article is word salad. An embarrassment to Wikipedia. Jfire (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - has zero chance of surviving AfD and is blatant block evasion in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Not notable in any form. Lynch44 (talk) 14:17, 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.