< April 16	April 18 >

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W39CA-D[edit]

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

Subject does not contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mississippi. Let'srun (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:58, 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!} 23:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Books[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Found mentions, but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 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!} 23:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any references that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deroy Rhoode[edit]

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

The subject is a South African rugby union player who has not received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in searches were trivial mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 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 redirect‎ to Euros of Hollywood. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Olander (jewelry designer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Salt evasion of Jannik Olander. This recreation was kept at a very-low-participation AfD in the past, but I doubt the community's consensus has truly changed rather than that being a fluke of who happened to participate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Fashion, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did it get deleted? The last AfD listed was !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jannik Olander (3rd nomination). I'm challenging the closure of the last AfD as having too low participation to overturn the previous delete and salt. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Euros of Hollywood: Limited amount of coverage mentioning this person in context of the TV show, mostly the Bustle link given in last AfD [1] and a WSJ review [2] Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 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!} 23:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I agree with Oaktree b as the subject doesn't have enough coverage. Hkkingg (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of revisions and sources of 'Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad'[edit]

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

WP:NOPAGE. The entire article is explicitly WP:OR, with the research method described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the lede. The article is almost suitable for speedy deletion (A11), except that the topic is potentially important (even if invented). A merge to Timeline of United States military operations or similar was considered but there doesn't seem to be sufficient background material to warrant this. Klbrain (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lists, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm utterly baffled why this would be worthy of an article here. I see no indication why anyone should care when this report has been updated and revised. Like, obviously it would be like many CRS reports. Are the individual changes actually significant? Has anyone independently taken note of them? This is weird. Reywas92^Talk 13:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ok, so the report exists, but why is it notable? This would be suitable in some military website, not here. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Timeline of United States military operations. I deprodded this because the nom said the topic is potentially important and I assume by this they meant the Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad report was important and I assume it is. But although Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad redirects to Timeline of United States military operations and there are claims in the history of Timeline of United States military operations that a merge was performed, I see no mention of Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad in Timeline of United States military operations. So I suggest the first two lead paragraphs of this article could be merged there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 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!} 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This appears to be heavily based on WP:OR and does not meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what is this? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOT. Besides being a hot mess, we are not a bibliography of primary sources. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 24 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ataska Mercado[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO. In a WP:BEFORE search I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources, apart from this review in the Manila Standard. Being a non-winning contestant on a reality TV series seems to be her main claim to fame, and her film and music careers haven't really taken off yet. WP:TOOSOON at best. Wikishovel (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Philippines. Wikishovel (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She rose to fame 2024 as VivaMax actress which is a famous app in the Philippines that shows adult content nationwide where she is recognized in her movies.

See Vivamax app background and reach here:

https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/08/25/entertainment-lifestyle/show-times/vivamax-hits-600000-subscribers-no-1-on-google-play-in-first-six-months/1812190/amp

See below references of her notable vivamax app movies performances:

https://www.pep.ph/pepalerts/cabinet-files/175244/vivamax-stars-joey-reyes-a734-20230816?s=d765687h8kgrf9g0km65269jeu

https://journalnews.com.ph/ataska-leaves-wholesome-image-for-a-dream/

See references below that must be used as motable instead of the voice kids but it made her a household name ehich is often referenced as the start of her career (see here as one of the many: https://mb.com.ph/2022/10/17/audiojunkie-sarah-geronimo-as-disco-queen-ataska-kyle-raphael-adda-cstr-chrstn-chelsea-ronquillo-and-the-real-kushin-drop/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.97.141 (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those sources you've cited, like the ones cited in the article, is that they're either unreliable news blogs or only passing mentions in WP:Reliable sources. What's needed is significant coverage in reliable WP:Secondary sources to show notability. Wikishovel (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source as an active showbiz personality in the Philippines: http://www.vivaartistsagency.ph/project/ataska/

Pxsheng25 (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for logging back in. It's a reliable source, but not a WP:Secondary source. Wikishovel (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this: https://www.viberate.com/artist/ataska/

Other article that make her recognizble is under her birth name ATASCHA CHLOE MERCADO:

https://lifestyle.inquirer.net/230110/whats-with-annie-being-staged-in-manila-in-18-year-intervals/amp/

120.29.97.141 (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please log back in. viberate.com is unreliable, and the inquirer.net reference is a passing mention. I hope you now see the pattern. Rather than posting references here, you're welcome to improve the article. Wikishovel (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will help improve the article

Kuyacontributor (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes now applied to improve the page and claim notability

Kuyacontributor (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. References provided above are to Mercado's talent agency which manage and market her career. It therefore lacks indpendence and cannot be considered reliable. No significant coverage found in independent secondary sources. Fails notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:SIGCOV due to new Known For section on Infobox Kuyacontributor (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC) — Kuyacontributor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Link sources below claim notability for this individual which is outside Mercado's talent agency and from verified pages that are part of Wikipedia. Articles below are not a passing mention and from reliable sources news.

Spotify ^[1] People's Journal ^[2] Abante ^[3] Manila Bulletin ^[4] DWNU ^[5] Showbiz Unlimited ^[6] Phoenix14344 (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC) — Phoenix14344 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

Please note that Spotify is not a WP:Reliable source, nor showbizportal.net (unconnected to Showbiz Unlimited). The journalnews.com.ph and wish1075 sources are short interviews with her, and interviews are a WP:Primary source. The mb.com.ph article mentions her briefly in a weekly singles roundup. Abante is a lurid tabloid: please note that Wikipedia also has articles on sources like the WP:DAILYMAIL and WP:NYPOST, but references from those aren't acceptable sources, especially for WP:Biographies of living persons. Wikishovel (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pxsheng25 she is an accredited adult film actress in the Philippines.

SW DG 18:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SWDG: can you please explain what you mean by "accredited", and how that makes her notable enough by the Wikipedia guidelines listed in the nomination? Wikishovel (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

by accredited I simply mean that she is known and recognized for her work. I do understand you consider nearly all above sources to be primary or 'passing mentions' however a strong argument could be made that the manila times article referencing VivaMax's success at 600K downloads and being #1 on the play store could be attributed to Ataska's success in her career, thus establishing notability. SW DG 19:14, 10 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!} 23:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that the editors need to be more selective about reliable sources, and the article could certainly be improved, but that's the point: the article could be improved. It can't be if it's deleted. The AfD lister asked for improvement and it appears to be happening. rspεεr (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AbanteCart Software[edit]

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

Salt evasion of AbanteCart. No real evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted through PROD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No meaningful claim of notability and no evidence of significant coverage in the article or found in a Google / Google News search. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anubha Sourya Sarangi[edit]

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

Salt evasion of Anubha Sourya. Sources are mostly about individual movies without significant coverage of the actress herself. No real evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 10 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!} 23:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I cannot find sourcing to satisfy notability requirements. Open to re-evaluating if some are found. —Sirdog (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaxson Rahme[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lebanese international rugby league footballer who played multiple times at the Rugby League World Cup. Nine sources.Fleets (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whilst not having an extensive coverage nor a known first grade career, we tend to keep articles of those who have played in the World Cup. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if editors arguing to Keep can address the nominator's concern about a lack of significant coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: World Cup player, needs expansion. Mn1548 (talk) 16:36, 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. If someone wants to work on a draft version of this article feel free to do so or contact WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Koyulhisar (1461)[edit]

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

Fail to see how this is WP:NOTABLE. There are barely two lines about this battle, which are unsourced. Didn't find anything impressive at Google ebooks neither, nor the Aqquyunlu book of John E. Woods. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A poorly-worded/sourced article on a battle with little long-term historical significance, which doesn't justify a standalone article. Aintabli (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another opinion could be moving this to a draft named Siege of Koyulhisar (1461), see [3]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prepared this article, but ı see only that it has been heavily edited and filled with ridiculous misinformation. It would be appropriate to delete the article.

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Storer[edit]

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

Biography of a writer and radio producer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or radio producers. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that he existed, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about his work in sources independent of himself -- but the only "reference" cited here is an archival fond of his own personal papers, which is not independent of himself, and the article has existed in this state since 2008 without ever having even one other source added to it.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to say more than just "he existed", or having to cite more sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 10 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!} 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabharat (animated TV series)[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. Series that is only on YouTube and and a streaming service. Not only does it not have GNG sources, it really has zero sources. Of the two references, one is to it's sales page and the other is a link to one of it's youtube videos. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Internet, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Two unreliable sources and no other with any coverage on the series to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone page. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Creator moved it to draft during the AFD discussion and that move was reversed. North8000 (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any support for Draftification which is what the creator seems to want. Their participation here would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwajit Singh[edit]

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

Heavily WP:REFBOMBed with sources that barely even mention him. Most statements in the Early life and Career sections are not supported by the corresponding references, so the page suffers from massive WP:OR, WP:V and WP:PROMO concerns. There are similar issues with his company page which has also been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPE Global Limited. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Teemu.cod (talk) 22:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Delhi, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are no reliable sources found which talks about the subject in details, these sources are just passing mentiones. Totally fails general notablity. Grabup (talk) 07:16, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Morton (baseball)[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability criteria for biographies either in general or for sportspeople specifically. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Kansas. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG, such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. And given the vintage there is probably a lot that is not available on the internet. Rlendog (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The subject has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Thanks to User:Rlendog for digging up these sources. JTtheOG (talk) 00:48, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Bocks[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~Weak keep Looks to be case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage including this abut more needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Change vote to weak keep on additional sourcing found, players career starting to kick off also which may well lead to more sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough. Found a couple of sources, including from the two major online media organisations, which I've added. Greenman (talk) 20:21, 3 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!} 23:14, 10 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!} 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To summarize the third-party sources that have been added, there is this 2022 interview with Independent Online and this trivial mention in News24. JTtheOG (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Clear consensus not to delete, but views remain evenly split between Keep and Merge, with strong arguments presented by both sides. A merge proposal on the target's Talk page may be a better venue to reach a conclusion. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fudge cake[edit]

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

Non-notable chocolate cake variant that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very distinctive kind of cake. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg, https://magazine.wellesley.edu/winter-2023/oh-fudge Hyperbolick (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - This source is for Wellesley Fudge Cake, whereas the article that I nominated is about Fudge cake. They appear to be two different desserts. Regardless, we need more than one reliable source to show a topic's notability BaduFerreira (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rejecting outright the proposition that “Wellesley Fudge Cake" is anything but some kind of fudge cake. Considering chocolate cake lists a dozen different kinds. There can be different kinds of a thing. Suppose it could be emerged into chocolate cake. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I have found some additional sources: [11], [12], [13]. I do realize that these are just blogs, but I think it's generally hard to find more reliable online sources when it comes to food recipes. Possibly someone with access to cookbooks could add such a reference, as cookbooks seem to be used a lot on food-related articles. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fudge cake article is about a dessert called fudge cake, not its recipe. Recipes cannot be used as reliable sources because every food has a recipe for how to make it. We need several sources that speak about the significance of Fudge cake to prove its notability and I have not found any sources that suggest that Fudge cake is a notable cake. None of the sources that you've provided are reliable. BaduFerreira (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with chocolate cake. While it does seem to be a distinct kind of chocolate cake, it doesn't seem to have any particular ingredient or cooking/construction process that distinguishes it from a generic chocolate cake (like a red velvet cake) or cultural prominence (like a Black Forest cake). But given that it is a specific variety of chocolate cake, with a defined recipe and expected outcome, it should be explained to at least some degree. The Cheesecake article is, I think, a fairly good example of how variations of a food should be treated (assuming that the variations can be sourced and don't meet WP:GNG). Ships&Space (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with chocolate cake, which this is a variety of. Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 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!} 23:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I assume that this is only the ordinary chocolate fudge cake and not, e.g., Tunnel of Fudge cake (which is separately notable, and also impossible to make any longer due to the key ingredient being discontinued). The ordinary chocolate cakes (i.e., American-style layer cakes – not tortes, not flourless, etc.) can be distinguished into at least the categories of devil's food cake, fudge cake, and German chocolate cake (per "Chocolate" by Maricel Presilla in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America) and perhaps, although this assertion confuses me, buttermilk ("Cake" by Sally Parham in same; she brushes past but doesn't name Mahogany cake, which is the transitional point in the 1880s, just before brownies [1890s] and the true chocolate cake [maybe around 1900] [though some consider mahogany cake to be the first chocolate cake [14], and there is at least one recipe from early in the 19th century for a chocolate cake – though not for a modern one, as baking powder didn't exist then]). Devil's food cake is made with Dutch-process cocoa powder and baking soda (the combination of these two produces a reddish tinge), and German's uses pre-sweetened chocolate bars, so those two are easy to separate, but fudge cake and chocolate cake both have similar ingredients. This source says the difference between fudge cake and chocolate cake is in the texture (fudge cake is moister and denser), and then describes differences in mixing technique (chocolate uses the creaming method and fudge uses the stirring method). From the description, Texas sheet cake (which currently redirects to a mostly irrelevant page, and is probably notable) is a fudge cake. I think that the labels are not always used with great precision. For example, blackout cake was originally called a chocolate fudge cake, but this source says the cake layers are devil's food cake, and our article calls it a (plain) chocolate cake. The Wellesley Fudge Cake from the early 20th century is one of the early versions of fudge cake. Wherever the information ends up, the first box mix specifically marketed as chocolate fudge cake might have been in 1948 by Pillsbury ("Cake mix" by Laura Shapiro in The Oxford Companion to Sugar and Sweets; note that Duff's put out a mix for Devil's food cake in the 1930s). Because the line is so porous, it might be better to merge fudge cake into chocolate cake, than to attempt drawing a firm line between them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very well known type of cake, often served in restaurants. The Banner talk 15:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see whether the consensus is to Keep or Merge. Thi AFD can be closed at any time a closer sees a consensus, it doesn't need to remain open a full week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the internet search results are any indicator, either white or black chocolate, the cake is extremely popular. Doing a Google searth, there are just recipe, after recipe, after recipe. Some of those come packaged as such, and some are individual reader recipes. — Maile (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what is there to say about these recipes as a whole that couldn't be included in an improved Chocolate cake other than the mere fact that they exist??? I'm really astonished that an editor as experienced as you just wrote something as unencyclopedic as "A Google search on the white chocolate cake brings up numerous recipes." So what? Adding a link to "HoosierMomOf5"'s recipe (WP:UGC) that was "off the side of a cake mix box" does nothing to refute the nomination. Putting a chocolate–butter "fudge" layer on a white cake is very much not even a "variant" of a chocolate cake that itself has a fudgey consistency, even if people use the same word to describe them, and there's no basis to having a separate page for these to say nothing, apparently, except that "recipes using this particular word exist". Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to admire that the second-most-recent edit before this nomination changed the intro from "A fudge cake is a chocolate cake containing fudge" to "A fudge cake is a chocolate cake, which, despite its name, does not contain fudge." What a junk article, vagueness about a name rather than useful content about anything specific. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as much as I hate it, certain celebrities have made this notable. There are lots of news stories about a certain past president who loves it, and there are cookbook recipes, blogs, etc., about this. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into chocolate cake. Neither article has a lot to it, so it would all become stronger together. The need for a separate fudge cake article is not clear. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:07, 25 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 List of Assassin's Creed characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altaïr Ibn-LaʼAhad[edit]

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

Reception sources were mostly just from game reviews. I tried to do BEFORE at google, but unfortunately I have found nothing valuable at all. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Assassin's Creed characters. The significant coverage doesn't appear to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability tag was just added a week ago. The Polygon source gives solid development background. The various listicles in Reception ("Top 50 XBox characters," etc.) are... not terribly strong... but they're something to show that he wasn't a nobody. More generally, while Altair certainly isn't as famous as Ezio, he's still one of the main characters of a gigantic franchise that has had a lot of content made about it. I'd want to see the opinion of some Assassin's Creeds experts here, because Altair not being notable would be very surprising. SnowFire (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great job for discovering the polygon source, but that's the only sigcov, while others don't really help notability. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Polygon source is also an interview. Significant, but not secondary, which are what is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per zxcvbnm's statement. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge I'll be honest I've been iffy about several of the Assassin Creed character articles, and this exemplifies a lot of those problems.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:38, 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 redirect‎ to Crumb family which has been restored to this version per consensus. If material is to be merged, the history is there. Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Crumb[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP. Notable primarily due to his familiel association with Robert Crumb. Schierbecker (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crumb family per the proposal at Talk:Charles Crumb#Merge to new article Crumb family. Jfire (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Comics and animation, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This could easily be solved by merging this bio into the Crumb Family page. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This page can not be Merged or Redirect to Crumb family as this page is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposal is to create a new article. It's not a bad idea. Schierbecker (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; see the discussion I linked above. And the person who closes the AfD does not need to be the person who turns Crumb family into an article -- they can add ((Afd-merge to)) to Charles Crumb and let the community implement the decision. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, there has to be an existing article to Merge/Redirect to when this discussion gets closed as far as I know. I might leave this discussion for another closer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crumb_family turned a valid listicle into a (bad) redirect. The previous version at [15] could be restored. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is a new consensus to revert the action of the 2009 AFD that turned this article into a Redirect to go back to this edit.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schierbecker, Jfire, Bearian, and Go4thProsper: Ok with restoration of previous version of proposed merge target as a start? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jfire (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with this. Schierbecker (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with these edits and support this version. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 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. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Genta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This biography was previously deleted at AfD. The reasons for that deletion remain in this version. The author portrays Genta as a politician, but there's no evidence they are an elected official, merely a civil servant - a chief digital officer. As the previous AfD said, CDOs are unlikely to be notable. As for the sources, they are press releases, interviews or mere mentions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Europe. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Monaco has a population of 39,000, and he is a minor civil servant. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't appear be (or was) an elected official, just a high ranking person in the ministry [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b he is an elected official and his department has 100 employees per THIS and other articles I have presented in my KEEP argument below. The article states "The creation of the position of Frédéric Genta. Its mission, with its team of 100 people: to develop a digital administration, make Monaco a smart city and a smart country, by promoting e-education, e-health, and e-security, and accelerate the environmental transition."

Further, check these 2 official Government appointment docs 1, 2 Rustypenguin (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rustypenguin, those sources confirm that he has been appointed by the Prince, for a two-year period, to do a job, rather than being a democratically elected politician. In Wikipedia, we don't write biographies about people who are merely doing their job. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's featured in media quite a bit [17], [18], but always giving interviews or talking about digitial initiatives within the government. I don't see a FR wiki article about him, which I'd expect as Monaco is mostly a French-speaking country. He appears to be the face of the digital initiatives of the government, a spokesperson more than anything. Somewhat promo, I don't see GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is an appointed politician and as such he meets WP:POLITICIAN. Check these links for further verification 1, 2 and 3. Politicians do not need to be elected to considered a politician , so the nominators reasoning is not valid. In addition, there are several news articles that would prove his notability, such as

Monaco Tribune - Significant coverage, Reliable Source

Harvard Business Journal - Not an interview, only has some quotations, but 50% of content is journalist written. Reliable Source

gouv.mc - Article about his government appointment. Reliable Source.

monacolife.net - Good coverage. Reliable Source.Rustypenguin (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a specific guideline on notability of politicians (WP:NPOL) and he doesn't meet that criteria. He is a government official, not a member of the legislature. For sources to contribute towards notability, they need to be independent of the source. The Harvard article is for alumni to promote themselves; the gouv.mc article is from his employer; the monacolife.net article is attributed at the bottom to "Monaco Life with press release" - press releases are not independent. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a cabinet minister, so no WP:NPOL passage. I'm not seeing WP:GNG in the sources in the article nor what I found in a search. The sources provided above are not convincing either; for example, the participant above claims that this source provides WP:SIGCOV of the subject, but it simply does not. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has a lot of coverage. Meets WP:BASIC. He has coverage on Le Figaro and Le Monde which are 2 of the largest French publications. Additionally, he is also here and here. Per WP:BASIC, even if a subject does not have significant coverage in one publication, multiple publications can be combined to show notability. Maxcreator (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxcreator: as three of the four sources you've introduced are subscriber-only, can you clarify whether any of them - and if so which - are about Genta, rather than articles about the digitalisation of Monaco that mention him or quote him? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While Mr. Genta might not qualify under (WP:NPOL) criteria he definetely qualifies under (WP:BASIC) There are multiple independent sources available, and some of them listed in the article, as well as additional not listed. I quickly checked those sources and they are reliable (leading french-speaking media organizations), independent of each other since they are competitors , and independent of Mr Genta. This should be enough to fulfill the basic criteria. A quick google search retrieved articles about the work done by his office as well, including some from the Monaco government, as some recent interviews at BFM Business [19], a national TV focus on business in France and an interview at France Info [20]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamalejo (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, and I don't see a single source that's not either press release churnalism or an interview. The Le Figaro article, for instance, isn't coverage of him - it's just a quote, and I don't really believe WP:BASIC applies to articles where people just get quotes - it's a very flimsy argument for keeping an article because it necessarily assumes WP:GNG isn't met. This is very promotional, the sources are only really on him when it's a press release, and reads sort of like a CV, which is a huge red flag for me for a BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 00:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the specific element in this article that makes it "promotional"? The person in question leads an office within the Monaco government that is at the cabinet level and coordinates across ministries within the [Council of Government|Council_of_Government] as such, it is a notable position. Mr Genta role seems similar to the USA CIO currently filled by Clare_Martorana, her article is similar in simplicity and the references included are mainly related to her appointment. Also, very similar in content and references, the previous USA CIO Suzette_Kent. These examples are appointed, inter-secretary cabinet positions that are considered notable. I don't see why the decision should be different in this case. Chamalejo (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either of those people are notable either, but the career section is written sort of like an extended CV. SportingFlyer T·C 06:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject is a government official with enough reliable coverage such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.Bradelykooper (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews don't count towards notability, and the other coverage is just reporting on him getting a role (like a press release) or just quotes him (not SIGCOV). I stand by my delete after that source review. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1- None of these are press releases. I do not see that any say press release on it or that an identical press release exists that it was copied from. They are news stories.

2- None are 100% interviews.One is partially interview and partially original commentary. 2 have a few quotations and the other 3 have no quotations at all. Bradelykooper (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[21] is routine business news that would have been generated from something like a press release. Others are articles where a newspaper calls him up and gets a quote on a topic from him, which is not significant coverage - you don't get a Wikipedia article because newspapers call you for quotations. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most news originates from press releases. However, when media outlets do not publish these releases verbatim and instead report on them, the content is transformed into a news article. This is a common practice for initiating news; companies announce new products, mergers, and other significant developments, prompting publications to write about these topics. As long as the press release is not published in its entirety as originally provided, it is considered a news article, not a press release. I do not know why you are trying so hard to discredit a notable government appointed official. I also note that another voter has brought up WP:BASIC, which states: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" Bradelykooper (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradelykooper: We are not discrediting the individual. What we are doing here is assessing the extent to which the subject meets the criteria that the Wikipedia community has come up with over years of refinement to determine whether or not there should be an entry about him in an encyclopedia.

I think you may have overlooked the part of WP:BASIC that says that to count towards notability, the sources need to be WP:SECONDARY, meaning providing thought and reflection - analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources - rather than just regurgitating a news release or quoting what Genta says. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:39, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKGU[edit]

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

No secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I stand by my seconding of the since-contested PROD — this is a remnant of how loose the inclusion "standards" still were in this topic area in 2019, which were still seemingly based more on being (or at least having been at some point) a licensed station (notwithstanding that this only establishes existence, which is neither notability nor proof of notability), without much regard as to there being anything more to verifiably say (and the odds for a newer radio station such as this one getting the required significant coverage are long enough as it is). Our list of radio stations in U.S. territories is one that only includes operational stations, so there's nothing to redirect to or any other plausible deletion alternative. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable radio station. TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Richey[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards, most of the sources cited lead back to pages from his own website and/or really low-quality suspect sources. I suspect this guy created his own Wikipedia page. Perfecnot (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and United States of America. Perfecnot (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Audacity and various streaming links, his own website and PR items. Sourcing now in the article is a blog, a PR item and his college. Very non-notable, very PROMO. Delete for lack of reliable sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Absolutely no sign of WP:NPROF, though I saw this on the Academics and Educators delsorting. I do see an NBC piece [22] and an Atlanta Voice piece [23], mostly aimed towards his radio show. Agree that there is a lot of promotionalism. A sensible alternative to deletion might be to redirect to a stub on the radio show. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Politics, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mullaly's Siding[edit]

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

Quite literally an industrial rail siding. Not a notable topic. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see significant coverage in independent sources required to meet WP:GNG. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm confused why in the world a few yards of track to a flour mill would need an article. There's probably a few dozen sidings like this within ten miles of my house, dozens more that were removed since the area deindustrialized. Reywas92^Talk 01:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patron X[edit]

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

This is basically an article about someone forgetting to turn off his cell phone 12 years ago. The incident does not have lasting significance, and Wikipedia is not news. Pichpich (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Antrotherkus 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pichpich. Thank you for reviewing this article. The article is not about someone's phone going off at a concert, which happens all the time, but about a conductor stopping the orchestra mid performance because of the phone, and speaking directly to the offender, in front of the entire audience and orchestra. The incident was discussed far beyond the scope of the concert itself, as it was a remarkable violation concert etiquette, which is quite formal at orchestra concerts. In terms of the event not having lasting significance, the article cited as reference 4 is from 5 years after the event took place. Perhaps the article should be improved to demonstrate this more explicitly. If this still meets AfD criteria, I certainly understand. Again, thanks for your review. 00ranges (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable incident a decade ago, likely used here to shame the person. Could be a brief mention in the Philharmonic article, under the trivia section. Even that isn't really notable. I find no coverage of it 10 or so years after, meaning it doesn't pass our standards, NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oaktree b. I created this article. It was certainly not my intention to shame anyone at all (Patron X is and remains anonymous), merely to create an article for a notable event in classical music culture that was absent from Wikipedia. Please see my above reply to Pichpich. If this does indeed meet AfD criteria, then I support its deletion. 00ranges (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fluff coverage at the time of the incident and nothing since; open-and-shut WP:NOTNEWS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split rock of Horeb[edit]

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

I've struggled to find sources since this was created. There are a lot of sources, but they are either fringe or seem to be about something else. I've left one source in the article as an example - the Fox News article is really a publicity piece about a travel tour run by someone who claims to have found the real location of Mt. Sinai. His book cites people like Ron Wyatt [24] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Religion, Geography, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Split rock of Horeb is just one of many natural split rocks that can be found in many arid environments. Lacks reliable sources, as noted above, that demonstrate that this specific split rock has either any cultural, historical, archaeological, geological, or geomorphic significance. Paul H. (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is unlikely to be the real Split Rock of Horeb, but it has been the topic of some coverage, and may well pass GNG as an interesting-looking rock that is the topic of a local legend. If this claimant to the title of Split Rock of Horeb has a different official name, move the article to that title. There is no corresponding article in Arabic for the title انشقاق صخرة حوريب

I see several Google hits for انشقاق صخرة حوريب , but I cannot evaluate them. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I added an infobox to the article to show where the rock is located. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I dream of a day when Wikipedia can have an article on every big funny-looking rock, but until then... – Joe (talk) 10:09, 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Stefani[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, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most that came up were interviews (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - French professional footballer. Full France international, played for France B, member of the World Cup squad. Over 100 club appearances. 12 sources in place to back this up.Fleets (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey there. Nice work digging these up. If you or anyone else could present a source with a similar amount of coverage to Source #6, I would happily withdraw the nomination. JTtheOG (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: World Cup player with 8 refs. Mn1548 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new sources added to the article show sufficient coverage to pass SPORTCRIT. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:37, 23 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; borderline WP:SNOW. BD2412 T 20:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wegmans locations[edit]

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

Flatly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't see a standing precedence for such lists. There is no reason to believe this is a suitable merge candidate. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, United States of America, Maryland, New York, and Virginia. Pbritti (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note WP:NOTPRICE is the specific portion of the policy that indicates lists like this should be avoided. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? delete per WP:NOTPRICE. Mangoe (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTPRICE. (Although not knowing where the nearest Burger Bar is poses serious concerns.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is outside our remit as a general knowledge encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While it appears the creator did a lot of work in creating this article, this is clearly a WP:NOTPRICE violation. Let'srun (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:44, 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. ✗plicit 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Healthy Mummy[edit]

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

This is odd. It appears to have been created over a re-direct for an Australian school. It's also a complete advert. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the Healthy Mummy page and updated its history. Regarding the school page I never realised it was still in my sandbox until I went to try create a new article was advised by another member in the chat to do what I did regarding moving it out of the sandbox and creating a new article. Regarding sandbox history probably not the correct way to do things due to a new user error but no ulterior motive. Wozza369 (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning delete. The page definitely is in poor shape, but I do note that it is not just a website, and that "Healthy Mummy" seems to have published multiple books. It is, in fact, a business and the founder is described as an entrepreneur and WP:NCORP are the appropriate guidelines here. At this stage I don't thing it meets WP:SIRS but will leave it a bit longer to complete searches or see what others find. Regarding the weird history, however, it appears that the editor who created this also created the school article in their sandbox. They copied the school article into place (and it looks in good shape on first glance), but then they blanked the sandbox and created this, but moved the sandbox to the new page, thus preserving the sandbox history in this article's history. Not the best, and clearly confusing, but ultimately nothing to see there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the page and the history. Regarding my "weird history" I was not aware that the school page was still in my sandbox until I went to create a new article. I was advised in the chat by another member how to remove it from my sandbox and create a new article - which is what I did, perhaps incorrectly. I don't even know how to move sandbox to a new page (obviously I did so unknowingly), however no ulterior motive or malice intended just newbie error. Wozza369 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine on the article's origins, but it is still highly promotional. "Healthy Mummy empowers mums to create a healthier lifestyle for themselves and their families through small, sustainable changes" / "The Healthy Mummy offers an integrated suite of recipes, fitness programs, and nutrition products for mothers with young children." / "make healthy living even easier and more convenient for busy women and mums". All in Wikipedia's voice, with the last sourced to two interviews with the CEO, and even then not really supported. It reads like an advert. KJP1 (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The sources talking about the financing are fine, but we need more. This [25] gives context on how the website is used, [26] and [27] seem to cover the website and the founder. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the basis the topic is a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies and requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references in the article meet the criteria, they simply regurgitate announcements, relying entirely on information provided by the company or execs, there is no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. The two references posted by Oaktree b above all rely entirely on interviews with the founder or stuff she posted on social media, also failing both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is going to have to be delete. I cannot find sources that meet WP:SIRS at a level of significant coverage that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above. And it’s an advert. KJP1 (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) Technically, as the nominator that already counts as a delete !vote, so this is a duplicate. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - this is the second AfD/Review of AfD mistake I’ve made. I’m just not very familiar with the process. I wasn’t sure, as a re-list, whether my original nomination counted. KJP1 (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure any quality issues are unintentional, we all try the best we can, but it just shows it's pretty much impossible to write an acceptable article with the sourcing that exists for this subject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:05, 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. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shefi Yishai[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shefi Yishai (2nd nomination)

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

Article without reliable references and is very poor encyclopedically. This article Shefi Yishai does not meet the notoriety to remain on Wikipedia nor can I find reliable and independent sources Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO #1. Sufficient coverage in Hebrew RS such as [28] [29] [30] [31] Marokwitz (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep here, WP:GNG is met (barely), though this article certainly needs a cleanup and probably a stubification. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this says it's the second nomination, of this article, but I can't seem to find the first (maybe there was a mistake?). Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Allan Nonymous by removing information you are reducing the relevance and notoriety of the article. Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of MUSICBIO #1. This nomination is the product of failed reasearch. gidonb (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro (End of the World)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. A cursory Google search and a look at the article's sources shows that the song's coverage occurs only in album reviews. ‍ PSA 🏕️ (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ‍ PSA 🏕️ (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: A way to delete the item. I see that there is no source that talks exclusively about the song. All the information about it has been written on pages that talk about the album in general, so it is not relevant. Something similar also happens with the rest of the articles about the songs from Eternal Sunshine except the singles, exclusively. Regarding articles like "The Boy Is Mine (Ariana Grande song)", they have some sources and wikification that, in my opinion, are dubious. Santi (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't agree with the idea that this song is not notable. It satisfies the first criteria, which although only states that a song might be notable if it charts, we should keep in mind that this is an intro and it has peaked in the top 10 in multiple countries, higher than some of the songs from Eternal Sunshine with articles. I agree that this song should have more coverage by itself, however. Gained has put a lot of effort into the article, and I don't think this one should be excluded. 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 05:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @AskeeaeWiki. I'm really saying turn it into redirect just to go along with those I consider "more professional than me." However, I rely on this discussion for my arguments, and I don't know which wins. Believe me, I am very sorry that @PSA wants to eliminate it for an argument that also seems valid to me, in addition to having helped him in a FAC in the past as anonymous. I don't know, I'm supremely confused than sure of what I'm saying. I think I'm not prepared enough to participate in AfDs, because I also opened one for List of Spotify streaming records and they all went against me for more justifiable reasons than mine. In summary, I just want everyone participating to keep in mind that I didn't give a strong argument but more out of confusion, because I think this would affect the validity. Santi (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree with @AskeeaeWiki. I think it indicates that this song may be notable that the song continues to gain a stronghold across Asian countries where it performing better than any album track. Additionally, a lot of work has been put into this rather high-quality article, which has enough detail for a standalone article. It can be continued to be worked upon and improved to get more independent coverage. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It doesn't meet NSONG but I think it meets GNG, and the article seems reasonably detailed. Heartfox (talk) 13:26, 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 merge‎ to Paranoia (role-playing game). Owen× ☎ 13:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gelber (game designer)[edit]

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

An article about a non notable game designer. Lacks SIGCOV and no verifiability whatsoever. If he has created a notable game, he should have appeared on reviews ad multiple news source. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not pass notability requirements- the only sources I'm seeing online mention his name in passing, as a game creator, but are not written about him. Editing84 (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunate, as Gelber's fame predates the Internet. I found Lawsuit info where he is named once only, ditto in this article by Allen Varney. I suspect sources which cover this individual to be substantially offline. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide them. There is barely offline sources for a notable American whose work dates in 1980's till date. If we're talking about Africa or otherwise, it will be a total case of WP:System bias. Not much work or sources for his works, and the ones listed in the article is lacking verifiable sources to show he was the real creator as wikipedia's policy mandates. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had them, I would. I think there are people who have complete collections of The Space Gamer; I am not one of them. Jclemens (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Paranoia as the designer's apparently most relevant contribution. About the nomination, the opposite of no verifiability whatsoever seems to be the case here, as everything in the article referenced and therefore verified! Likewise, Dan Gelber does appear in reviews in multiple sources. So far I did not see more than his contributions acknowledged there, so nothing beyond what we have here, which so far is still a stub, so I understand the concern about SIGCOV. On the other hand, not all the sourced information the authors of our article here collected is present at Paranoia, so this should be preserved in a merge rather than deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. In such a case it is somewhat unfortunate to link to one of two major contributions, but well... If anyone has can find more sources, I'd be happy to hear about it. Daranios (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge here. The reason for redirecting is because it has been confirmed by one verifiable source of creating a "video game" with colleagues. It's the best option to "just" redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: I disagree. The first three sentences of the Dan Gelber (game designer)#Career section are referenced to a secondary source - I would say the secondary source for the topic of designing role-playing games - and they elucidate what the respective roles of Dan Gelber and the other designers were for the creation of Paranoia. That information is not yet present at the target, and fits there in either the Publication history or an Origins section. ("video game" is nowhere mentioned in the article, I assume you meant "role-playing game"?) Daranios (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: In case you are concerned that those sentences are verified by only one source (I am not quite sure what you meant there), this is also substantiated by Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we meant the same redirecting. No problem! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Paranoia (role-playing game): This is the best work he has done per article and in other to help backlog, WP:ATD be applicable and redirecting is the best option. Like the discussion above, I have proposed PRESERVE which can be said as merge "important ones"—probably the sourced parts or one listed above! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place above as comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:17, 4 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) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just need consensus to be reached on whether to merge or delete. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems fine to merge the career section with Paranoia (role-playing game), less the last sentence. Checked the ref of last sentence and added it to designers on Marvel_Universe_Roleplaying_Game. Rolmops23 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Keep The Space Gamer #72, pp. 13-15. source meets notability per WP:N, being reliable and in period. If it was added to the page, there is grounds to cancel the request for deletion. Merge also OK if consensus prefers. Rolmops23 (talk) 06:33, 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 no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of a consensus for deletion. Discussion revolves almost entirely around the volume and usability of sources for this article, and while it can be said to hang on by the barest of threads in terms of quality of sources, it is not clearly established that it relies solely on impermissible sources. This may be revisited in the future, if sourcing improves, or if it becomes clear that sourcing cannot be improved. BD2412 T 20:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohag Chand[edit]

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

mostly run of the mill coverage that does not confer notability Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Sohom (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV, looks like the marketing department scraping the barrel to make it look notable. The Banner talk 14:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the coverage is significant; some on the page and some not yet. (It's a series not a film btw).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Could you identify said pieces of significant non-run-of-the-mill coverage ? Sohom (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Daily soap ‘Sohag Chand’ completes 100 episodes";"Did you know ‘Sohag Chand’ is the remake of Marathi show ‘SuManamadhe Bharli?’ " and "'Sohag Chand': শেষ পর্যন্ত জিতবে সোহাগ চাঁদের দল! কোন দিকে মোড় নেবে ধারাবাহিকের গল্প?"

are significant and on the page. And this or this, or this also is significant coverage, yet is not on the page (yet; but feel free to add it), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, what you call "significant sources" is nothing more then the marketing department talking. The Banner talk 23:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are more under WP:NEWSORGINDIA - non-bylined churnalism - unreliable to use for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines here. One of the primary reason the use of Times of India is discouraged is because it is known to accept payments from individual/companies in return for positive coverage. The Indian TV series business is well known for using money to prompt positive coverage (see the multitude of sock puppet rings surrounding this topic area). If this was indeed a actual full length film review, I would have happily accepted your argument. However, the sources are very short article that reeks of WP:CHURNALISM and paid coverage, which is something that TOI is well known for doing. I thus don't think the TOI sources are admissible from a notability POV. Sohom (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my interpretation of the guideline, that's the current consensus on two project pages and an exact quote that you can verify if you want. I know nothing about sockpuppets in the present case. As for all the sources being "very short", not sure you can say that. Anyway I wish to stand by my !vote, if you allow me, and will leave it at that. Also, a redirect to Colors Bangla or to the original series, should be considered anyway (both mention the series). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Entertainment4Reality regarding sockpuppets. Regarding the rest, I'll probably bring this up at WP:RSN. Sohom (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the interpretation that was reached by consensus. Relevant discussion if you choose to participate is here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What interpretation? What consensus? I quoted (not interpreted) the current consensus (just open the links). Again, your link is to an ongoing discussion in which you both are (very) involved: nothing so far can be considered established by that other thread except the fact that the opinions you express here too are indeed your personal interpretation of the current consensus and/or the fact that you would like to establish a new one! How could that be of any weight concerning what should be decided here? It’s like wanting to change a guideline in real time so that you can delete a page that’s being debated... not really fair imv. Last words here: feel free to remove the sources that are judged unreliable if the page is kept and don’t forget to consider a Redirect if a standalone article is not deemed suitable. Again, here too, consider this my final reply. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I linked to in this discussion is WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Is that not something that was determined through consensus? Seems to be unless there is something I missed. I went ahead and evaluated all the sources and listed in my !vote below.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - I would think a show that is notable would have more press outside of Times of India but there is little. What I see is churnalism that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Like the policy or not, it is consensus and these references for this show are not reliable for establishing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.

Bengali One India, Bengali One India is part of OneIndia and pursuant to this relevant RSN discussion, “OneIndia and all its derivatices like Filmibeat, Gizbot, Etc, are content farms.”

Times of India, no byline. Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Not reliable for notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Additional coverage exists medianews4u.com and telegraphindia.com. In addition to multiple articles in India Today, would seem to meet notability.Hkkingg (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with your vote in the other deletion discussion, it is based on sourcing that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. I would invite you to take part in that discussion linked above. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So much WP:TOI. No SIGCOV outside that. TOI is highly unreliable for BLPs due to their paid editing policies, and this is an excellent example how that's true. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hkkingg and added Bengali language ref including Hindustan Times Bangla,ABP Live Bengali ABP Live Bengali Aaj Tak Bangla.Clearly notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only one of those with a byline is the first and only covers an outing that cast had, nothing in-depth about the show. The rest is clearly NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is coverage in the Bengali Language the ABP Live Bangla example has covered the serial extensively have listed 22 articles.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.Hindustan Times Bengali 3 articles 1 2 3 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 23 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. There is a consensus that the articles have sources that establish notability. Behavior in this AFD has been poor. I think the first mistake was nominating this article just two hours after it was created. It probably should have been kept in Draft space until the fim was released and another solution, rather than coming to AFD, would have been to draftify the article. But after this AFD discussion was started, some editors let emotions dictate their comments which has the potential to derail a civil discussion. Then we get threats against the nominator which is totally out-of-line. Although I think it was premature to start this AFD, editors are required to assume good faith with all editors, especially those you disagree with. No one comes out looking good here and if I see behavior in an AFD descend into insults again, blocks will be issued. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout[edit]

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

Page says filming is complete but the reference used to support fails verification. Cannot find anything outside of WP:NEWSORGINDIA that would count towards notability. CNMall41 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Filmyworldwiki who is the author of this article, left a message on my talk page asking for advice. Inasmuch as this is not my area of knowledge, I would like to invite all who see this to help the author before trying to delete. They are genuinely looking for editorial guidance on this. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66:, thanks for the comment. Is the !vote yours or the creator's? Just wondering if they had policy based reasoning for why it meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a long day on these various AFD noms. I put the Keep here, but I am not sure why at this point. Let's just leave it there for a day or so, and see how things go. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Fair enough. Get some rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ping me later if nobody else chimes in, and mine is the only comment here. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to Comment. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And as anticipated, IP has decided to remove maintenance templates without explanation. I would expect them to show up in the discussion next. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, are those templates needed if you take the page to Afd? The Notability template documentation even says: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.".... Emphasis mine. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until announced film release.....in 12 days. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even it film is released, notability is based on sourcing. If there is no current sourcing to support notability, draftify would be an WP:ATD until there is. However, many draftified film pages wind up right back here AfD when creator or another SPA moves it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 days. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 12 days is not a guarantee of notability. Policy based input please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: This Afd comes either too late or too early. Draftify until announced release could be a solution but do that 6 days before the release of a film seems unfair when sources cover production. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even tough releasing in a few days, it already has tons of coverage in Indian publications. I have added these 2 new ones thehindu.com and indiatoday.in.Hkkingg (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tons of coverage" does not make something notable. That coverage must meet guidelines for reliable sourcing. The Hindu piece is under NEWSORGINDIA and I have removed it. The other with India Today is an announcement of the trailer. Hardly the coverage needed to make a film notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your removal, sorry. I couldn't find anything against The Hindu and India Today is not mentioned (in some threads of the noticeboard, the magazine is mentioned but consensus is not clear). Was your concern the fact that these sources were based on primary sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: you cannot at the same time reinstate the Primary sources template, remove primary sources mentioned in reliable sources and take the page to Afd, that's too much at the same time in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to adhere to NEWSORGINDIA and your refusal to take part in the linked discussion to overturn is concerning. I reverted as it is clearly against the consensus that decided NEWSORGINDIA. I am trying to AGF here but if you want to overturn consensus, you shouldn't try to do so through edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What refusal????? What are you talking about????? The Hindu is mentioned as RELIABLE in the link you provide. And India Today (the magazine) is NOT MENTIONED.....Oh, after all, I give up. Do as you like. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last time...because this is getting into DE territory...these sources fall under NEWSORGINDIA and were added to show notability. They CANNOT be used for notability based on NEWSORGINDIA. You were asked to take place in a discussion at WP:RSN but stated you would refuse to do so. If you don't like the consensus that is NEWSORGINDIA, feel free to opine in the discussion but please stop being disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final reply:

Where did I "state" I would "refuse" to take part in any discussion? When did I want to overturn any consensus? About what? (These are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to reply).

I DO like the current consensus, yes; not sure where I said I did not, and the said consensus (to which you yourself provide the link) says The Hindu is (very) reliable and does not mention India Today. If you want to change that, feel free. As for the 2 references you removed, sure they're not enough to attest notability if that's all there is, but why remove them from the page? I've asked this twice (here and on the page (edit summary), but instead of explaining what precisely you thought was wrong with them and clarifying, you preferred another approach, which leads us to the last point.

.....As for me being "disruptive"/"edit war", if you have anything of the kind to say, this is not the forum to do so, especially when it's not based on anything specific except the fact that I am clearly not sharing your opinion about what should be done with the page. Anyway, all is well, I won't visit nor edit it anymore, and, there too, feel free to add and remove anything that you want. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I am casting aspersions, ANI is that way. I'll gladly take my medicine if it is determined as such. Consensus would govern that just like it has with NEWSORGINDIA. As far as refusal, here you state "too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources" despite being provided to this discussion link. Note that another user who also agrees with the interpretation of NEWSORGINDIA pinged you in that discussion and have not seen you respond. You have also been told in other replies about the discussion both at the RSN and the Indian film taskfoce and have not taken the chance. Remember that process is important.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blatant misuse of a quote taken out of context, as everyone can verify ...my statement is about 3 sources on that page and nothing more and it comes after a long discussion (that took place on at least 3 different pages!!!! So much for refusal of discussion!!) Full quote: "Now please excuse me but I won’t reply nor comment here anymore: again, too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources. Remove, replace anything you wish; after all, it probably won’t be harmful and I am sincerely sure you will do it in good faith anyway." (emphasis mine on my own words) And a few lines above, I even said I would have a look at your proposal(s)!!!! As for being pinged in an ongoing discussion about the TOI, sure, maybe, but was urgent active participation compulsory? I am satisfied with the current consensus, as I said multiple times to....you. Nevertheless, I actually have read one of the discussions you mention and did not know there were 2 venues. I'll have a look when I have more time. This is really my final reply here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing misused. I provided the full link to what you said. I took the part about you saying its pointless to discuss the references anymore. This was after I provided you with the link to the relevant discussion. Please, if you want to accuse me of not assuming good faith, please go to ANI as this has become ad nauseam. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The film has already been released and has reliable reviews (see reception section). @CNMall41: I feel that @Mushy Yank: is right in this case. Wikipedia:NEWSORGINDIA does not mention The Hindu and the fact that The Hindu requires subscription doesn't mean that specific article was paid for. Several newspapers like The New York Times [32] require subscription but that does not make them unreliable. Since the film has been released and has been the subject of reliable reviews [33] [34] [35] [36] [37], any further discussion is a complete waste of time.

Before you say that The Times of India is unreliable, remember that Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. [38]. DareshMohan (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are reading NEWSORGINDIA wrong. It does not need to mention The Hindu. The publications it lists are EXAMPLES. Just because one is not listed as an example does not mean that NEWSORGINDIA would not apply. Again, refer to the linked discussions and feel free to opine if you feel it needs changed. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 is this too unreliable? Or you want just all to be US Media only? Just to be WP:CIVIL, I wanted to know what more you need to demonstrate notability of the subject that you have AfDed? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have already crossed the line with lack of civility so here we are. What is the date of that reference and what is the date of the nomination? This isn't about US Media or Indian Media so don't even go down that road. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The film has released, and there are reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KEEP: film is absolutely blockbuster with reviews and it stars Great actors passes WP:NFILM why is this even nominated ? HarryD (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion. Just because it has been released and there are reviews does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does, actually. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, actually. The reviews need to have SIGCOV in order to be used. Even if 1,000 reviews were released, if all of them are just a few sentences, they can't be used. Additionally, paid reviews don't count either (I think). Industrial Insect (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THEN READ THE REVIEWS ON THE PAGE....seriously....this relist is ...unnecessary .... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your case. Please allow others' voices to be heard @Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 03:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time, my input is the only thing you seem to notice in this discussion. I confess that I find this a bit strange. Anyway, you yourself had asked for "policy-based input" and, as I told you was very much expectable, now that the film was released, you have it. "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors.", says the guideline. Especially when a film is so clearly meeting various requirements. I have indeed no further comment and will not even bother changing my comment to Keep. If everyone else thinks we are not wasting other users' time and disheartening potential contributors or confusing the reader with that completely unnecessary deletion notice on the page, then, by all means, let's go for at least another round of policy-based Strong/Speedy Keep votes and more or less relevant general considerations about sources and guidelines. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviews already cited are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -I don't understand for what this AfD is? CNMall41 is an experienced editor. Why this AfD? What more needed when tons of full length reviews are there?? This is really weird. And I don't believe that anyone with good understanding of WP:NFILM would come with a DELETE vote. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more "final" comment :D. To be fair, the Afd was initiated when those reviews hadn't been published yet (12 days before (:D)). But you are right, withdrawing would have been appreciated (especially when the release made the rationale totally moot); then it was relisted (which was after release and publication of the reviews....; but I was accused of BLUDGEONing when I mentioned that reviews were more than enough (!))), so unless someone has the good idea to close this as SNOW, here we are.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is no different than this AfD. I could close this AfD as KEEP with WP:SNOW as non-admin closure. But I won't. Let this AfD to be an example of WP:CIR of the nominator. Probably they would end up at WP:ANI someday, someway. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop. If either of you feel my conduct is in any way nefarious, please take it to ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 I assume this "Just stop." isn't per WP:CIVIL. Why? Had you? Even after 18 days? It is more than enough for you to withdraw. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to assume, I will make it clear. You made a comment about conduct instead of opining a rationale for keeping. Not civil, and in fact more of WP:BAITING. You obviously didn't based your comment on policy as you would see this was nominated before any reviews were added. And now, you make an accusation of incompetency. So, if you have an issue with my actions, take them to ANI. I would advise you to WP:DTS here though. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Franklin-Fraiture[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sold in stores[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Not sold in stores (marketing)

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

Article was entirely OR, been stripped down after a previous AfD, down to a DICDEF but remains completely unsourced. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. -- D'n'B-t -- 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: You can find mentions of the term in many articles, but that's all it is, just the phrase being used. I don't see analysis of this in any sort of retail journal or business journal. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uses of the phrase abound, but I can't find anything discussing it as a concept. No sources, no article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Formerly notable when mail order via television and catalog was common and items were shipped direct from the warehouse, but as that fine line has been erased with the age of e-commerce, this is an out-of-date term that is an artifact of the 80s and 90s. Nate • (chatter) 15:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:NTEMP states that "Notability is not temporary", so a "formerly notable" topic would still meet notability guidelines. —Ost (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makhdoom Shahabuddin (journalist)[edit]

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

This BLP is very promotional in nature, citing unreliable and even unacceptable sources, such as opinion pieces penned by the subject themselves and such pieces are generally not admissible as references. While the subject has garnered some press coverage, but it's too common for journalists to get some sort of press attention on every one of them. To me, this one doesn't appear to meet the criteria outlined in WP:JOURNALIST as well WP:GNG.

A SPA MeriAwazSuno (talk · contribs), possibly the subject themselves, has persistently attempted to create AUTOBIO initially at Draft:Makhdoom Shahab-ud-Din, followed by another SPA Bidisufwet (talk · contribs) (potentially a sock puppet) successfully creating the BLP later. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant body of work. samee converse 02:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anamor[edit]

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

This article, created in 2013, lacks significant coverage from reliable sources in the intervening years. Southati (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Women. Southati (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems she signed with Universal Music at one point [39] but there's nothing about her otherwise. Even in Italian news, I can only find photos. delete for a lack of sourcing, likely not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 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 Love of Life. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben "Beanie" Harper[edit]

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

No refs for many years. It's a character in a long ago cancelled TV soap. None of the claims have sources so can be removed per WP:V and anything remaining could be added to Love of Life. A redirect seems total overkill. JMWt (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect : I agree with JMWt. No independent references can be found to verify the content of the article. Hkkingg (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the soap opera. This utterly fails notability. Neocorelight (Talk) 22:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without independent references. Redirects are cheap, as WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scilla Sclanizza[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources, does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Southati (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Southati (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Lisi[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources, does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Southati (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Dance. Southati (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree 100% Does not satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studios Hergé[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability. While the namesake of the studios, Hergé, is undoubtedly notable, I don't see how these studios are. When I conducted a WP:BEFORE search, most of the sources were about Hergé and not the studios themselves, and/or do not have WP:SIGCOV of the studios. The article has been tagged as requiring additional sources since 2014, and most of the sourcing is unverifiable (the two book citations do not have a page number, or ISBN, making the claim violate WP:PAGENUM, and the other is an interview with a link to an insecure website). As an WP:ATD, I'd be fine with a redirect to the Hergé Foundation, which appears to be notable, since the Foundation is the successor to the studios. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Organizations, and Belgium. Bandit Heeler (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources giving attention to the studios, their role in the creation of the later Tintin stories, the many famous artists who worked here (most famously Bob de Moor, Jacques Martin and Roger Leloup probably, what happened to it after Hergés death, ... Plenty of reliable and indepth information from even English-language sources like this book (note, one or two of the pages listed are about the older advertising Studio Hergé had on the thirties, not the actual Studios Hergé, but most are about this one), this book, this one, ... And plenty more in French language books like this one discussing the Studios at length. Fram (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I would object to a redirection, because while technically the Foundation is the successor, their role was completely different: the Studios were a creative groupn making new comics and new drawings (for ads and so on), while the Foundation was an exploitative group, reusing existing images for new uses (e.g. clothing) but not creating things. Fram (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated now. The French article also has some additional sources. Cortador (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both Hergé, Son of Tintin and The Real Hergé: The Inspiration Behind Tintin (linked by Fram above) offer significant coverage that demonstrates notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No notability problem whatsoever. Also the length of the article is sufficient. The article does need more inline references, already covered by a warning. Nomination is a clear NEXIST failure. AFDISNOTCLEANUP and SNOW apply. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The studios have received sufficient sig coverage throughout their run. X (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fritz Behrendt[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Possible that WP:NPROF is met but I'm not finding the sources to show it JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Social science, and Germany. JMWt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His book Sozial Strategie für Entwicklungsländer has high citations in Google Scholar, but that's the only one. The authority control box links to an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, which may meet WP:ANYBIO #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Have added some refs (Two reviews of one of his books) and two things by Katja Windisch (Windisch, Katja (2005) Shaping Social Change. The development sociology of Richard F. Behrendt, Bern , pp. 19-31. (Gestalten sozialen Wandels. Die Entwicklungssoziologie Richard F. Behrendts, Social Strategies, Vol. 39, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, 2005, 259 S.) AND Windisch, Katja (2002) Betrachtungen zur Sozialen Entwicklungsstrategie und Sozioökonomie Richard F. Behrendts. Soziale Phänomene als Vorbedingungen ökonomischer Entwicklung, in: Victoria Jäggi, Ueli Mäder, Katja Windisch (Hrsg.): Entwicklung, Recht, sozialer Wandel. Festschrift für Paul Trappe zum 70. Geburtstag, Social Strategies, Vol. 35, Bern: Peter Lang Verlag, S. 74-84.).(https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Gestalten_sozialen_Wandels/xX8mWf7_3rUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Richard+Behrendt%22+-wikipedia+Windisch&pg=PA19&printsec=frontcover) These seem to me sufficient to allow a clear pass of WP:prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. We now have five reviews of two books, enough for at least a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR from me. I think the other material brings this up to a full keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following the information in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland entry led me to more detail about his career and many more book reviews. Now the AUTHOR pass is obvious. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal[edit]

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

This article was created with substantial portions directly copied without attribution from Philip Schofield. It's not clear that this needs its own page, as the relevant material is included in context on the Philip Schofield article. Given the recency of the article creation, it can be safely deleted without too much concern about external links or external search engines. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Events, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unnecessary and undue split from the subject's article. AusLondonder (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As this is copied and the subject has an existing wikipedia article already. I can't think of any valid reason to keep it.Hkkingg (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is covered in context within the Phillip Schofield article, so this article is an unnecessary content fork. Don't see the need for an AtD here. Rupples (talk) 00:16, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mirdad[edit]

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

There are no reviews of his work and no significant coverage of him. He does not meet GNG in any way. Ynsfial (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Spirituality, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 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!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11: From reading the article, it feels promotional to me. As the nom has failed to find any significant coverage, this is likely eligible for speedy deletion as promotion . QwertyForest (talk) 08:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo Stadium[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Colleagues at Wikiproject Japan tell me that the page on ja.wiki only has primary sources. There may be sources in Japanese but I'm not seeing anything much to add. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Japan. JMWt (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could possibly be WP:REDIRECTed to 1992 AFC Asian Cup#Stadiums or Onomichi#Parks and gardens per WP:CHEAP as an alternative to deletion, but otherwise I'm not seeing how this meets WP:NBUILDING. A Google search of the 広島県立びんご運動公園陸上競技場 really doesn't come up with anything that looks like WP:SIGCOV, and pretty much all of the content in the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia article is unsourced or WP:NOTEVERYTHING kind of content. The only content in the Japanese Wikipedia article that might be worth adding is the stuff about the stadium's naming rights being purchased in 2022. I also found something online about stadium undergoing a renewal in 2022, but that's about it. In addition to the Japanese Wikipedia article, there are six other non-English Wikipedia articles the stadium, but these all are stubs and appear to just be translations of the Japanese Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: why are there no interlanguage links on this page, I wonder? I found the WP:ja article here (sorry, someone please convert to proper 'ja' link); where are the other language articles? I have no knowledge of sport [stop there, really] stadia and the like, but searching in Japanese only finds me primary sources. The name Bingo is geographical: this is the name of the old kuni or province of this area. The naming rights bit is about something called Dasshu Kozakana-kun, (lit. "Dash", as in running, "little fish"), which sounds like a "cute" character name, but I cannot find anyreference to this name not associated with the stadium. So there really is very very little here. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sport of athletics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on my expansion (added "History" section) and the above sources. The stadium has been a venue for several large international competitions in the 90s, so I think there are avenues for expansion by looking into newspapers from that time period. In addition there are several Japanese-language sources on the web to examine. --Habst (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst's expansion, AGFing the Japanese sources that coverage is sufficient. Giant Snowman 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I appreciate the new sourcing and section, but the coverage and seeming notability here is quite weak, especially for a stadium that doesn't appear to get regular use and whose last official/notable use was 32 years ago. Anwegmann (talk) 22:57, 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. A consensus to delete is not going to emerge here. Per IP 82's comment re: Category:Lists of busiest airports, should consensus there change there is no issue with revisiting this in that light. Star Mississippi 02:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Iran[edit]

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

The list article goes against WP:NOTSTATS as it's just a compilation of Iranian airport statistics over the arbitrary period of 2011 to 2019. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Lists, and Iran. Sunnya343 (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment note that about all pages in Category:Lists of busiest airports have this structure. Maybe a broader discussion is needed to determine if all these articles should be deleted or kept? 82.174.61.58 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTSTATS require context, which this article somewhat lacks but can be easily provided, and these are statistics which would have been provided in an almanac 30 years ago even if not necessarily for Iran. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of context would overcome the NOTSTATS violation? Sunnya343 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sportingflyer. Orientls (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say that enplanements could be added to List of airports in Iran like List of airports in Washington (state), but I see no reason for this list to be singled out among the many in the category. These are perfectly valid statistics to compile, and while the article could be improved with prose context, I don't see the issues of "reduce readability", "may be confusing", or "so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" that are the basis of NOTSTATS. Here, we see "the statistics can be split into a separate article" in practice, and List of airports in Iran or even Transport_in_Iran#Airports_and_airlines could include recommended summarization. While some pages that are primarily statistics may focus on too narrow a topic for encyclopedic significance or at least a stand-alone article, this is generally considered relevant and sources like [40][41][42][43] show some media interest. Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources that basically repeat the raw data from the Iranian Airports Company, so WP:SIGCOV is not met. The MEED source does provide some analysis, but it's only discussing the statistics from April 2016 to January 2017. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about Iranian Airports Company, so we don't have to have sources independent of the Iranian Airports Company. There's nothing wrong with using primary news sources, they just have to be used with appropriate care to avoid bias or original research. Reywas92^Talk 16:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that primary sources are fine for basic facts like the individual statistics, but per SIGCOV we need independent secondary sources to demonstrate that this topic is notable, i.e. that it deserves its own article. Sunnya343 (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rameumptom[edit]

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng - this is a definition of a term used in the book of mormon. There are no apparent independent reliable sources that cover tge topic in depth. This seems like an unlikely search term for the book of mormon, so I don't believe a redirect would be appropriate Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, which guides that there are times when it's better to cover a topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. For readers, Rameumptom would be more usefully described in the wider contexts of the plot/setting/theology of the Book of Mormon; there is not an amount of coverage that would justify a separate article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hydrangeans' comments. Trevdna (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎. Deleted due to WP:G11. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ucodelite[edit]

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

Fails NSOFT (more broadly, GNG) and has some NOTAD plus not NPOV language. BEFORE search turns up no possible reliable sources to indicate notability (or any sources at all, too). Creator copy-pasted draft out of draftspace after a declined AfC. WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 04:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me about the discussion regarding the article on Ucodelite. I kindly request that the article not be deleted as it holds significance within the coding community and provides valuable information about an innovative software development tool. I am open to contributing to the discussion and making any necessary improvements to address concerns raised. However, I believe that Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia based on its relevance and impact in the field of software development. Thank you for considering my input. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it holds significance within the coding community, you will need to verifiably show that by including reliable sources that indicate the subject's notability. Sources from the subject's own website are not reliable and thus do not count towards notability. For example, see Codeacademy. It has numerous reliable sources (almost 40). You don't necessarily need to have 40 (avoid OVERCITE), but you should have enough that indicate notability.

I should also note that your original draft at Draft:Ucodelite was declined. Why did you recreate it in mainspace? WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 05:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any misunderstanding. I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of Ucodelite within the coding community. I will ensure to include verifiable sources from reputable sources that indicate its significance. Regarding the draft decline, I acknowledge that it was declined initially, but I believed that subsequent improvements warranted its inclusion in mainspace. I will take this feedback into consideration moving forward. Thank you for your guidance. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of UCoDeLite within the coding community. I will ensure that credible references are included to support its notability. Regarding the original draft at Draft:Ucodelite, I apologize for any oversight in recreating it in mainspace after its decline. I am committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines and will work to address any concerns raised. However, I kindly request the removal of the nomination for deletion to allow for further improvements and contributions to the article." Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm committed to providing verifiable information to support Ucodelite significance within the coding community. We are actively editing the article to include additional sources and improve its quality to attract more views. Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate your feedback and have since made revisions based on the guidelines. I believe Ucodelite merits inclusion on Wikipedia due to its impact and relevance in the software development field. Your consideration in removing the deletion nomination is greatly appreciated." Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider removing the nomination for deletion, as contributors are actively editing the article and it is gained more views. In terms of demonstrating the significance of Ucodelite within the coding community, I understand the importance of providing reliable sources to establish its notability. I will work on including such sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Regarding the original draft being declined, I appreciate the feedback and will take it into account as I continue to improve the article. Thank you for your consideration. Mehzabin P S Alvi (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I have also contributed because it seems that it's relevant, And I am keeping my research along Ucodelite and still improving, So I requesting to remove from "Nomination this article for deletion'

Thank You Harvardjustine80 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While this discussion was going on, the article was deleted, judged by an administrator to be blatant advertising. Anyone wishing to restore the article as a draft so that it can be corrected and resubmitted should go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exotel[edit]

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

Under notability I think this qualifies for deletion. There is not significant coverage of this company. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have restored the references and neutral content which was removed by various users last year and also expanded the page a little. Here are a few references that I have identified which provide significant coverage:
- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- Nair Ghaswalla, Amrita (19 September 2016). "Cloud telephony co Exotel dials talent for growth". Business Line.
- John, Nirmal (5 February 2016). "Under cover, inside your cellphone". Fortune India.
- Ramakrishnan, N. (2 June 2013). "In the cloud, calling SMEs". Business Line.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Bhalla, Tarush (30 November 2022). "Exotel bets big on traditional segments, product bundling to beat macroeconomic impact". The Economic Times.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- Modgil, Shweta (9 September 2016). "The Cloud Will Connect Us All". Inc42.

The company meets the notability criteria and the article can be expanded with these sources. 49.37.249.147 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to get into one by one source and why its not establishing the notability, I can do it. But for now MC is feature and features are paid pieces on MC its declared on their content policy. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you link to the content policy that you are talking about? Also care to elaborate your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ire where you curiously voted keep? 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll do it. Anon IP added some references above but, other than a bald "meets the notability criteria" Ta-Da! assertion, hasn't gone into any detail as to why those references or any other references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria. Here's the analysis on the sources above:

This from Moneycontrol is a profile that relies entirely on information provided by the company and a phonecall with the founder. There is insufficient in-depth "Original Content" and it fails our criteria. In reality, this article fits into the category "puff profile" beloved of many tech columnists.
This from Business Line suffer from precisely the same shortcomings. It is also a "puff profile" that relies entirely on information provided by the company and an interview with the Founder CEO and also fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
This from Fortune India is another example of a puff profile that relies entirely on regurgitating information provided by the company and their CEO/investor. Also fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
This next one from Business Line is an early puff profile from 2013. Same failings as the others. No Independent Content, no independent in-depth analysis/commentary/investigation/etc of the company, etc. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
This also from 2013 from Times of India is YAPP (Yet Another Puff Profile) from the company was a start-up and the article simply regurgitates the company's own messaging from that time. Fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND
This from The Economic Times is "part of a series of interviews" - fails ORGIND
This next from Moneycontrol is the earliest yet from 2012, and is another puff profile relying on info from the company/CEO with no content that meets the criteria for establishing notability, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
Finally from Inc42 in 2016 comes YAPP which is entirely based on an interview and fails for the same reason.

No doubt these references were originally removed from the article because they're Company Marketing. This is what companies do, they help papers fill their editions by making themselves available for being interviewed as "The Next Big Thing", everyone loves a success story, etc, but these types of articles are precisely the types that fail our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only trying to rescue the article from deletion, so please spare me the snide remarks.

The references were originally removed by 103.10.119.68 (with promotional edits like this) and User:RN.IN (who is known for adding copyrighted material and writing purely promotional articles). There is no indication that these references were removed because "they're Company Marketing".

According to you, every single source on the page is a "puff profile". Can you please share a few examples of media articles that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH but do not fall under your definition of "puff profile"? Preferably for privately-held startups of comparable size. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are failing to establish brand notability generally, mostly Organic PR with content approval from agencies. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Here are a few more sources with adequate independent commentary and analysis:
- Raghavendra, Sumanth (28 January 2021). "Exotel's US$5.4 million Series B—an unusual startup funding story". The Ken.
- Raghava, Avinash (7 March 2024). The Grit Stories. ISBN 9798893226089.
- Upadhyay, Harsh; Manchanda, Kunal (7 July 2022). "Exotel records 12 fold jump in profits with flat revenue growth in FY21". Entrackr.
- J., Anand (22 March 2018). "Seed money was enough for this startup to break even, build a sustainable B2B biz". TechCircle.

The sources that I have linked all have bylines and are attributed to staff who are unaffiliated with the subject. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get past the paywall on The Ken
A 230 page book that mentions the company and founder several times could be good but again I can't access it
The Entrackr article is trivial as per NCORP, just profits and losses.
I don't think the TechCircle article establishes anything notable about the company either.

If there is some way that I could read the book I would be more than happy to add to the article. Moritoriko (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for being unable to access the first two sources, see WP:PAYWALL/WP:SOURCEACCESS. I have access to the book and it contains a full chapter on Exotel, I can provide the text if you need it. I don't have access to the Ken article but it is a "16 min read", so I expect it to be an in-depth dissection of the company like all other Ken articles of that length. Combining the book source, this Ken article, the 2022 Moneycontrol story and the 2016 Fortune India feature, I believe there is sufficient significant coverage and independent analysis. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not discounting the source because of the paywall, I was merely stating the reason why I didn't give any other opinion on it. Highking has already noted why the Moneycontrol and Fortune India stories are both insufficient. You asked under HighKing's comment about what an appropriate article would look like and I did some searching all the start ups of comparable size that I found didn't have wikipedia pages.

That being said I know I am more deletionist so I'll let everyone else decide what to do. Moritoriko (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant that all startups of comparable size don't have a Wikipedia page. I asked for examples of media coverage of those companies that do satisfy ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. Whatfix, for instance, is a startup of comparable size which has also been covered in a chapter in that book I've cited. 49.37.249.247 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several sources added to the page appear to contain promotional content. Some of these sources were previously removed due to concerns about their promotional nature. However, they have now been restored by User:49.37.249.147 in an effort to safeguard the article from potential deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Sriram, M. (20 January 2022). "The rise, fall and resurrection of a startup: How Exotel persevered through a tumultuous decade". Moneycontrol.
- K.J., Shashidhar (26 March 2013). "Meet your next-gen telephone operator". Times of India.
- Saxena, Radhika (26 July 2012). "Exotel: Your business phone line gets smarter". Moneycontrol.
- D’Monte, Leslie (8 May 2013). "BackBack Telephone calls from the cloud". Livemint.
- Ghoshal, Abhimanyu (27 May 2013). "Smart telephony begins to take shape in India as Exotel launches developer API in beta". The Next Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RN.IN (talk • contribs) 06:27, 23 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 04:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitri Antoni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Estonia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Svartner --Estopedist1 (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with reduplicated names[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the best ever example of a list with an arbitrary characteristic. What next? List of people with double letters? List of people with names that conmtain three letters e?, List of people with second name Bob? The privious nom was closed because they said no rules forbade such lists. Well, I don't know what was 14 years ago, but now there are: Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policiesverifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability. Basically, the above boils down to the fact that no reliable source discusses such lists - Altenmann >talk 15:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't read the "Couplings" source but this is not a distinguishing or unifying characteristic of these people, and notability is not established for why reduplication in names is significant or why they should be listed together. It seems indiscriminate to me that it combines names that are reduplicated within a single name (e.g. the Chinese given name Bingbing or Congolese surname Lualua), as matching surnames and given names (Abraham Abraham), as multiple surnames (Rodriguez Rodriguez; I imagine this can't be that uncommon with Spanish naming conventions!), and as made-up nicknames and fictional characters! Perhaps limiting it to just Same personal name and family name would be better and less indiscriminate but this would really need to show some level of significance with sources so it doesn't just feel like unexplained trivia. Reywas92^Talk 17:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all uncommon with Spanish names: there must be thousands and thousands of people called Rodríguez Rodríguez. In the days of printed telephone books it was easy to check if you were in a Spanish-speaking country (as I did, years ago). I wouldn't be all that surprised to meet a Rodrigo Rodríguez Rodríguez. In any case the list is trivial: Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list has a very trivial feel. It also includes names that are kind of the same. The best way to handle this would probably be to cover reduplication within each language on its own. It may well warrant a place in the Wikipedia name space, cf. Wikipedia:Unusual place names. PS. See also List of tautological place names, which is similarly unsourced and fairly trivial. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Article is more trivia than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The arguments made for deletion are fair and persuasive, yet, perhaps this merits further consideration. The article has been around for quite a while and a lot of time has been spent compiling this (admittedly haphazard) list. As messy as it is, there is some actual (and amusing) information here, and it's not evident that one would find it in one place anywhere else. Is this something that we want to preserve in some distilled format or someplace else in this encyclopaedia (per Geschichte above)? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cl3phact0: What if I were to userfy it? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't respond in time you can respond on my talk page. I have the page saved to a Google Doc. I do personally think that this page should be deleted in its current form, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 10 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) 02:48, 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 keep (withdrawn by nominator). ‎. (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhaike Village massacre[edit]

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

There is another article (Ju County attack) which talks about that exact same incident, albeit with better sourced information. Everything written here is also written in the above article (arguably better written too). There is no reason to have 2 articles on the same incident and I propose deleting this and redirecting this link to the above article. Josethewikier (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josethewikier If your proposal is merging them, then do that? Or simply redirect it. It's already been tagged to do that for over a month, so I'd recommend doing that. There's been no opposition - I'd say you should withdraw this if that's what you want to happen, or it will take a week. Both these articles are very obviously about the same thing happening, everyone recognizes this, no one has done the merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll try my best to merge them first then. Thanks. Josethewikier (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josethewikier well you can't merge them if you delete them. Do you want to withdraw this, then? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh. yea, I guess then. Josethewikier (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Josethewikier and PARAKANYAA: Hi I am the editor of Ju County attack. All information on the Zhaike Village massacre page had been merged with the former article. Thank you. ~~ J. Dann 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely great to know. Thank you. Josethewikier (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the article made first is going to be deleted, "Zhaike Village massacre" I feel is still a better name for it, it's more descriptive and provides a more specific location. I feel the title should at least be "Ju County massacre", or "Zhaike Village attack". GoatLord234 (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 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. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 03:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marnix van den Broeke[edit]

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

Working actor, but doesn't meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR. None of his parts even had a full name, just "Werewolf" and the like. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Terry Pratchett's Hogfather as his best known role. In agreement that this fails NACTOR. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:53, 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. It seems that there have been changes made to address the nominator's concerns.

Again, please do not move an article being discussed at AFD while the discussion is ongoing. It complicates relisting and discussion closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Acevedo[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, see tagging in article for problems with in article references, nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Finance, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you are wondering why the article is written like crap, it is because it is machine translated from the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia. Even the article title is incorrect; the subject's name is Miguel Acevedo, not Michael. Regardless, the other sources in the article, primarily [44], as well as this article I found, should be enough to fix the verification issues. Subject passes WP:NPOL as an Argentine vice governor, which is equivalent to an American lieutenant governor. Curbon7 (talk) 06:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up the article, which cost me nearly an hour. I hope that the article creator learns from this and no longer creates machine-generated garbage blindly copy-pasted from other language projects. Curbon7 (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the creator from creating new articles due to failing to attribute original sources, and lodged a WP:CCI report. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NPOL as a vice governor per Curbon. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:44, 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.