< April 22	April 24 >

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hierombalus[edit]

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

This article was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.

References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Religion. asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a brilliant article and it would have been better for it to spend more time in development, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. AfC is an optional process. Furius (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid reason to draft as the previously lacking references have been expanded upon. Additionally, the subject is notable enough to be credited by ancient sources as the teacher of Sanchuniation.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: I think my nomination statement has been misunderstood? I brought this to AfD because a new page patroller draftified it instead of AfDing it by mistake. AfC is indeed an optional process, but this article should not have been at AfC in the first place; it should have been AfD'd. That is why it is here. The grounds for deletion is the standard one: there is not significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering The premise for this nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the availability of sources. The article initially had some bare references that were expanded. There are numerous reliable sources that address the topic, suggesting that the criteria for deletion based on the lack of sources is misleading. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade Can you share which sources you believe contain significant coverage? I'm only seeing brief mentions. For example, Lokkegard says The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out. That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering check the article el.ziade (talkallam) 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade I have read the article. Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Your concern about the expectation for "significant coverage" of a historical figure like Hierombalus is understandable, especially given the context of the Late Bronze Age./Early Iron Age It's true that for individuals from such a distant past, documented information is often limited. The survival of any records or mentions from that era is remarkable, and even minimal details can be highly valuable for historical scholarship. Considering the challenges associated with the preservation of ancient texts and the rarity of extensive records from that period, it's indeed significant that Hierombalus is known to us at all. This alone underscores his importance in historical context. Expecting extensive coverage akin to more recent historical figures may not be reasonable and could indeed lead to an underrepresentation of ancient individuals on Wikipedia. If the standard of "significant coverage" were strictly applied as suggested, many articles about ancient figures might be shelved, diminishing our understanding and representation of the past. It might be useful to revisit what qualifies as "significant coverage" in the context of ancient history and consider the value of preserving mentions of such figures, even when details are sparse. This could help ensure a more comprehensive historical record. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Well-discussed in sources easily available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are some more sources discussing him here. I agree with the above points. Aintabli (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giedrė Labuckienė[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NBIO. BLP, nothing found in article or BEFORE showing this has WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a number of wikis, including the Polish and French versions which have both more content and 14 and 15 sources, respectively. A 15-year-player for the Lithuanian national team, have any of the sources been checked? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finally edited it and Im gonna take a part of Polish Wikipedia

ItsMeGabeProductions (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't looked through them but a brief look of Lithuanian sources gives numerous hits, did the BEFORE focus on those or just a general Google search? Alvaldi (talk) 12:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article needs work, the subject seems to be notable basketball player. [1][2][3] Alvaldi (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article definitely needs work but the subject seems to meet WP:GNG. Aside from the ones provided by Alvaldi, I found [4], [5], [6], [7]JTtheOG (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There have been substantial additions to the article since its nomination. A source review would be helpful as well as the nominator's opinion on the article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per rationale by JTtheOG. Chekidalum (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is evidently a notable player. Niafied (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunzala Suleymanova[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this interview, where she claims to have retired at age 23 or 24. JTtheOG (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Azerbaijan. JTtheOG (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As nominated by JTtheOG. Chekidalum (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Astbury[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Concur that it passes WP:Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by. Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option? While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't "add to" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field. I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Commando Logistic Regiment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

383 Commando Petroleum Troop RLC[edit]

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

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Similiar units almost certainly would not have an article. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment. Non-notable (and tiny!) military unit. Various sources note that the unit exists, but nothing to demonstrate independent notability from the parent formation. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's actually quite a bit of coverage of this unit in works discussing the role of the Commando Logistic Regiment during the Falklands War - please see this Google Books review: [8]. This book in particular discusses the troop and its role, as the decision to not mobilise it for the war was a significant mistake in the author's opinion. @Hawkeye7: do you have a view here based on the article you developed on logistics in the Falklands War? Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment, since the article contains nothing that is not in that parent article, without prejudice to its re-creation at a later date if more material becomes available. I did mention the unit in British logistics in the Falklands War, but as Nick-D notes, it did not deploy. Badsey and Privratsky discuss the problems that arose as a result of this, so secondary sources are available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commando Logistic Regiment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Montasola. Consensus is against retention as a separate article Star Mississippi 02:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Maria Murella, Montasola[edit]

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

Initially proded with the reason 'This church is not notable enough (WP:GNG). Doesn't even exist in Italian Wikipedia'. I do think that English Wikipedia notability guidelines are among the strictest out of all Wikipedias, namely because English is a common internet language. Therefore, I am not sure if it can pass, given that no other Wikipedia (even Italian) has this. Per WP:NBUILD:

Buildings 'may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. Also, are sources only in Italian (or only in a language other than English) allowed? JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. JuniperChill (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, Italian heritage listing is not great, but in most other western countries a medieval or Baroque church would undoubtedly be heritage listed and would therefore pass WP:GEOFEAT so I think this is certainly notable. Yes, of course non-English sources are acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Although this Wikipedia is likely the strictest out of all, we somehow allow special and very old buildings here even though there is only one source, and that is only in Italian. So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? This article may not be meet GNG and it is a very obscure place. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. This can also apply to Houghton Mill where it is a National Trust site, but only has a source and very few people know it (I just looked up random NT sites that are not very popular) so should be gone. JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, are all National Trust and English Heritage sites are presumed to be notable? Yes, of course they are, per WP:GEOFEAT. Houghton Mill is a Grade II*-listed building. I know that non English sources are allowed, but how about an article that only has English sources like the case here? Yup. This basically means it is notable in Wikipedias eyes, but not in mine. Ie i dont see it as notable. That's not really relevant to Wikipedia notability. Others do. This article could certainly do with more sourcing, but buildings of this age are definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Romanesque church probably built on the ruins of a temple, Roman age or earlier. It means a 2000 years or more old building. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola. With deep respect for the experienced editors that have previously contributed to this discussion, I can't find myself agreeing with the Keep !votes above:

WP:NBUILDING specifically states that Buildings ... may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability (my emphasis). The Keep !votes above recognise that Santa Maria Murella might have historic/architectural importance, but ignore the lack of coverage, which is a case exactly anticipated by the relevant notability guideline here. Nobody has presented any "significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources", and the best I could find was an entry from an office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy, which I'm not sure whether we can regard as "third-party".
Even if notability is met, WP:NOPAGE suggests that if covering a topic as part of a parent article would improve readability, we need not have a standalone article. It seems that the existing sources have little to say that can sustain a lengthy article on Santa Maria Murella: the church and its history can be adequately summarised in a few paragraphs at Montasola. Seeing as Santa Maria Murella, Montasola claims that the church...was located at the site of the Roman city of Laurum, which seems to be its most important feature according to previous !votes, the church is probably easier understood in the context of Montasola's history. In my experience, this is not uncommon for non-notable churches (and let's be honest: many places have churches that date back several centuries, though the current buildings might not be the original ones).
As an alternative to deletion, a merge allows the preservation of the page history should significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources emerge per WP:NBUILDING.

I note that Rococo1700 created articles for two other churches in the town (Santi Pietro e Tommaso, Montasola, San Michele Arcangelo, Montasola), which have nothing to support their notability except an entry on the local council's website. On their userpage, they write that their aim for new entries is to try to have at least two "independent" sources, so I suspect this collection of articles results from inexperienced editing, and may also need to be reviewed. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, yes, I think articles containing only non-English-language sources are perfectly fine (cf. WP:NONENG). Here's one I made earlier. The non-availability of English-language sources suggests that the topic might not be the most interesting for English-language readers, but it doesn't detract from the topic's notability. Cf. WP:INTERESTING: Wikipedia editors are a pretty diverse group of individuals and our readers and potential readers include everyone on the planet. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 15:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Montasola, until such time as more/better sources turn up (in whatever language).Ingratis (talk) 14:37, 23 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!} 23:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source: Italian, gives details on the church's history.[9] Rupples (talk) 03:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source is from a office of the Episcopal Conference of Italy. The homepage explicitly makes clear that the project is a census of Italian churches, creat[ing] a national database of Italian churches. Your mileage may vary, but to me, this doesn't constitute an independent source, and consequently it doesn't contribute to significant coverage or notability. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montasola I agree with IgnatiusofLondon that as a separate article this will at best be a stub. The only sources I can find are mentions in sources that are essentially lists of churches in Italy. I also think that information seekers are better served to encounter what little data there is in the context of the Montasola article. Note that the Montasola article itself is only a few sentences, not surprising since it is a small town of ~420 population. The Italian WP article has quite a bit of history of the place but none of it is referenced so we can't even make use of that, and the church is not mentioned in that article. Lamona (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested to Montasola. There is too little to support four or more stubs about a small commune off the tourist track. Also, it would fail my long-standing standards for churches, having only one factor for notability, its age. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jetways Airlines Fokker 50 crash[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting coverage. Not notable. PROD template was removed with ZERO improvement. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to 2024 in aviation Kvng (talk · contribs) left clear feedback on why the PROD was removed; "Removed PROD tag: Deletion contested, consider merge or redirect to 2024 in aviation as preferred WP:ATD". They clearly felt that was better than having an article deleted and you should take their advice rather than dismissing it as 'zero improvement' because they obviously feel the same in that it shouldn't be its own article. Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed. Nate • (chatter) 20:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. Even if you merge some of the content, this SHOULD be deleted.

Edit summaries are not there to just test your typing and should be read, not dismissed

I know what edit summaries do. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — routine coverage without lasting effects so NOTNEWS. I have no objection to merging/redirecting the article. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 20:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete'~~: as nom. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 20:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote It is assumed by your nomination you're asking for deletion, and you cannot vote twice. Nate • (chatter) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrSchimpf Now I'm not socking am I? It's just a reinstatement of my opinion. Editors do this all of the time. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstruck it, and will only strike it back when I get a third opinion. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 21:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted; we do not allow duplicate votes, and the third opinion will agree (and I certainly did not accuse you of socking). Do not do this again, and assume good faith. Nate • (chatter) 22:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did. I said I wasn't. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The third opinion agreed with me. Let's keep this unstruck. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete as nom" !votes are common, I see no reason to strike this (and have thus unstruck it). Rosbif73 (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate votes (and triple votes, etc.) are always struck. Your deletion nomination is your "vote". We don't allow duplicate votes at any deletion discussions. This is common knowledge for editors who regularly participate at AFDs. Do not "unstrike" it. This has nothing to do with sockpuppetry it's because nominators are not allowed to vote twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 02:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw it's a !vote thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 14:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to 2024 in aviation as per original response to the PROD. No evidence of lasting coverage but a redirect could still be useful as this incident did get coverage in primary sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a summary of the crash is already on 2024 in aviation but there's nothing to merge as mentions on the year in aviation are always kept brief. A redirect would not be useful, and indeed non-notable crashes are often removed from the year in aviation pages. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No point in redirecting to 2024 in aviation if in the end the topic doesn't have an article.

Fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SUSTAINED. WP:NOTNEWS. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect not necessary as a fairly unlikely search term. Lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think it would be better to have it be a merge/redirect due to it being notable enough to be on 2024 in aviation but not notable enough for its own article mainly due to its lack of coverage outside of some sources. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to weigh Deletion vs. a Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also would have PROD this, non-notable incident. Little to no coverage, very little long-term effects. Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even redirecting to 2024 in aviation won't help. Has no significant coverage from secondary sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:30, 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 delete‎. A rough consensus finally materialized after the last relist (thank you, Liz!). Owen× ☎ 13:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semzi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER. Sources are either passing mentions, interviews, PRs, or not even mentioning the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'm almost certain the award nominations are notable, but we still need better sourcing for more biographical information. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More research would be done to support article with more sourcing for biographical information. The subject is quite a notable individual with just probably limited press publications ReoMartins (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReoMartins Well, now you’re taking. As far as I know, there are a lot of notable people in real life who can’t a Wikipedia entry because they don’t meet the necessary Wikipedia notability criteria. Wikipedia’s notability is not exactly real world notability. The current status of this article doesn’t meet up, not that they’re not notable or influential in real life. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject does not meet any criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited in the article actually discuss the subject. His nominations at the Beatz Awards aren't enough to justify a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I agree with Oaktree B that this is a weak keep due to the award nominations. His other sources are weak.Maxcreator (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: and mark as promised. Majority of the sources in the article doesn't meet SIGCOV and while the awards merits notability: it's still not much for a standalone entry on Wikipedia. I will remove some sources that didn't add to notability. For my vote (if draftified) can be marked as "promising", since there is a partial way to notability in the future! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/02/bad-boy-timz-is-one-of-nigerias-best-singers-ive-worked-with-semzi/amp/	Was talking about the subject	Vanguard is reliable per WP:NGRS	~ Much like an about music interview	~ Partial
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/weekend-beats/producing-songs-for-davido-mayorkun-the-highlight-of-my-career-so-far-semzi/	Ditto	Guardian Nigeria is reliable per WP:NGRS	Normally, Weekend Beats sounds like PR	✘ No
https://the49thstreet.com/49th-exclusive-semzi/	Above	Blog sites	Interview and blog post	✘ No
https://pan-african-music.com/en/nigerian-producers-2022/	~ A list that mentions articles, more of featuring, no PR here	~ See editorial	List	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/music/review-dj-consequence-vibes-from-the-future/jhle44r	No mention	Per WP:NGRS	No mention	✘ No
https://culturecustodian.com/bad-boy-timzs-mj/	No mention	Ditto	No mention	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/11/nicki-minaj-nas-ifeanyi-adeleke-feature-on-davidos-a-better-time-album/	No metion	Per above	No mention of the subject	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/music/mayorkun-features-victony-on-holy-father/jbrp0lg	Ditto	See above	No mention	✘ No
https://www.okayafrica.com/joeboy-drops-new-music-album/	No mention	Okay Africa is reliable	Applied same as above	✘ No
https://www.morebranches.com/omah-lay-couples-with-more-emotions-on-the-deluxe-version-of-boy-alone/	No mention	Not a reliable source, blog or PR	Same as above	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/life/listen-ajebo-hustlers-featuring-fave-in-love/	Mention!	Why not?	More like PR—get away magazine mention; just mention	✘ No
https://culturecustodian.com/bad-boy-timz-serves-new-visuals-for-faya-from-empires-where-we-come-from-vol-1-compilation-album/	Passing mention	Per WP:NGRS	Inherent mention	✘ No
https://www.max1023.fm/boy-spyce-releases-new-single-relationship/	Les or no mention	Max FM is a Lagos based television channel	Inherent notability only on Boy Source	✘ No
https://culturecustodian.com/no-bad-boy-no-party-highlights-significant-moments-in-bad-boy-timzs-journey/	Passing mention	Culture custodian is a reliable source	Still on production. Inherent notability	✘ No
https://soundcity.tv/afropop-sensation-bad-boy-timz-unveils-debut-album-no-bad-boy-no-party/	Focuses on Bad Boy Time, a Nigerian artist	Sound City TV is a Nigerian television music channel	Focus lacking on the subject	✘ No
https://www.pulse.ng/entertainment/music/victony-features-14-artists-on-new-song-ohema/8988dbp	Passing mention	Like above	Doesn't meet notability	✘ No
https://randr.ng/nominations-list-the-beatz-award-2021/	List	Rhythm and Rhyme is a blog site	List	✘ No
https://thebeatzawards.com/winners-perfecto/	~ List	For the award but not for other citations	Being nominated doesn't mean notability. Per WP:ENT, the subject must have been nominated multiple times of a major award	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Delete: After analysis of the source above, I was convinced of the many "passing mentions", "no mention" and more generated in citing sources relating to PR. Nothing to draftify again. It doesn't meet WP:THREE for sources, WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. Each of the sources either mention, or not at all, or about a music one of an artist he had worked for previously. Delete is the "best" alternative. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In one of the discussions and sources, it submits an evidence about this act who just recently co-produced a track that has over ten credible and notable artistes from Sub-Sahara Africa featured. These artistes have their wiki pages, I believe the professional who takes up the task to fuse these different acts into a single musical project is worthy of an article on Wikipedia as well. ReoMartins (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ReoMartins It is imperative for you to know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for you to think an article should be kept. You should also importantly see WP:INHERITED. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Liz, there is already a consensus here if by analysis of the arguments above. Isn't see the reason for relisting. Most importantly, the keep isn't strong enough or showed how the article meets inclusion. The source table can also be reviewed to see blatant addition of sources that doesn't mention the article. (Just a 'simpler' suggestion. ) — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe Hehe, if I was an administrator, I would have relisted this discussion too, so don't worry, Liz made the right decision. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderwaalforces, Sure. It's just that Liz doesn't take time analysing such deletions. Welp, it's good getting clearer consensus. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Scribe, well, that's quite an insult I didn't expect to see when I was reviewing open AFD discussions tonight. I'll just leave this one for another closer to handle since you are unsatisfied with how I'm handling things. Again, this is a volunteer hobby, not a job and nothing obligates me to close or relist any AFD discussion but I try to use my best judgment. But I'll leave this one alone and someone else can eventually close it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Working with subjects that pass GNG is not enough to provide notability. While I see subject having some nominations, I fail to see WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCER here by secondary sources.Tumbuka Arch (talk) 13:39, 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. I don't see a consensus here. You are free to pursue other alternatives like Redirection or Merge but starting discussions on the article talk pages or make a return trip to AFD in a few months when participation levels in AFDs will hopefully return to high numbers which would make determining a consensus more likely. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of French words of English origin[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be a good idea to move it to Wiktionary instead? Obviously these articles have value, so I think we should retain them, but in the other wiki. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with Wiktionary policies to have an opinion. PepperBeast (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mae yr erthygl hon yn cynnwys llawer o eiriau sydd yn debyg iawn i eiriau Cymraeg (sydd hefyd yn iaith Geltaidd) sydd ddim yn dod o eiriau Lladin na Saesneg. Felly rydw i yn sicr ei fod yn adnodd pwysig iawn i'w chadw fel cofnod o eiriau Ffrangeg sydd yn dod o hen iaith Gaul, felly dylai gael ei chadw er mwyn ei phwysicrwydd. Nid yn unig oherwydd diwylliant Ffrangeg, ond y ddiwylliant Geltaidd sydd yn gorchuddio llawer o Orllewin Ewrop, yn cynnwys Sbaen, Y Wlad Belg, Y Swisdir, Gogledd Yr Eidal, a Gorllewin a De'r Almaen. Wrth ddileu'r dudalen hon, rydym yn dileu darn pwysig o'n hanes a'n diwylliant.

This article contains many words that are very similar to Welsh words (which is also a Celtic language) which do not come from Latin or English. Therefore I am certain it is a very important resource to be kept as a record of French and Celtic words that come from the old language of Gaul, so should be kept because of its importance. Not only for its importance in French heritage, but also for Celtic heritage which spans most of Western Europe, including Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, the North of Italy, and the West and South of Germany. Gareth ap Emyr (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, it's Euro-centric. The Academie Francaise isn't representative of French in Quebec, the Office de la Langue Francaise sets suggestions for Quebec French, which is mostly what we use here in Canada. This would need a rewrite for a more global view and most of this is unsourced. There's something here, but I'm not sure even a draft would fix this. Oaktree b (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A selfie is égoportrait [10], literally an ego-portrait. I suppose we could draft it, but this would be a project. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to delete this one, we'd also have to delete all similar articles, and there's a lot (five just for the lists of English of French origin). I've never encountered such lists on the Wiktionary, but it would indeed maybe make more sense to have these there. But in the end it wouldn't make any major difference. Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind they do exist on Wiktionary actually! https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:English_terms_derived_from_French Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same for French words https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:French_terms_derived_from_English Ulysse Verjus-Tonnelé (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the opening context and various ancillary information are not adequately covered by the relevant Wiktionary categories. It is desirable to expand these articles into something like Influence of French on English which is an encyclopedic discussion of the topic and not just a list, but these lists are better than nothing and better than a link to a Wiktionary category. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet to take any particular action with this bundled nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To be honest I'd just delete the lot of them, these seem too niche to be of interest here, without some further scholarly discussion around these words, which seem to be missing from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per @Eluchil404:'s recommendation of expanding the article to be similar to Influence of French on English. It has problems with the way it's currently written, but it isn't unrecoverable. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 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 no consensus‎. People are on the fence about this, but the discussion trends towards "keep" as more sources were discovered and the article improved throughout the AfD. Sandstein 07:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters (2004 film)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a short film. The attempted notability claim here is that it won an award at a minor film festival, but WP:NFILM does not just indiscriminately accept every single film festival award on earth as a notability-locking award -- that only goes to major internationally prominent film festivals such as Cannes, Berlin, Venice, Toronto or Sundance whose awards get broadly reported by the media as news, because even the award itself has to meet the notability criteria for awards before it can make its winners notable for winning it. But the award claim here is unsourced, and the article isn't citing any other sources for anything else either. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything. It's entirely possible that there are sources that aren't online, but I can't really find anything to firmly argue that either. That leaves us with the sole claim of this winning an award at BUFF. I would argue that the award would give the film some notability, just not enough to keep on that basis alone. BUFF is a notable film festival, but not notable or major enough to be on the level that is expected of the award criteria for NFILM. It's not a slam against BUFF - most film festivals aren't at that level. If someone can produce a couple of good sources (as well as one for the award) then I'm open to changing my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reviews from The Guardian and Film Threat [11] [12]. Although both of the other sources are direct interviews, the Film Threat source goes into detail about the film's reception and what the director feels he should change if he had the chance to retake the film. What do you think about the new sourcing @Bearcat: @ReaderofthePack:? DareshMohan (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's definitely on the right track, but I'd still need to see proper reliable sourcing (i.e. not the self-published website of the film's own distributor) for the award claims before I was prepared to withdraw this from discussion entirely — an award has to be one that gets covered by the media (i.e. passes GNG in its own right) in order to gain the privilege of making its winners notable for winning it, so award wins have to be sourced to media coverage to prove that the award is notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Audience award at a film festival doesn't seem to meet film notability. The rest seems to be local coverage, of a hometown hero-type coverage. I don't see anything written about this short film otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't source the audience award. Sourced the other award based on [13]. @Oaktree b: @Bearcat: If two reviews (the Guardian one is a capsule review) doesn't add notability, then this article can be deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reliable source either. We need to see real media, not blogs. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete vote. I suppose if pressed I'd consider this a week keep based on the two reviews, but I'm not really satisfied enough to say that officially. Here's my argument as to why I removed the delete:

So far, there's no definitive judgment based on review length. The reason why is that review length doesn't automatically mean that something is of good or bad quality. Every time someone tries, the argument centers back on one central point: what makes a review a review is that the journalist forms an opinion or judgment on the film, which can be done in just a few sentences. It doesn't help that there are lengthier reviews out there that tend to discuss general things (or navel gaze) for a few paragraphs, then use the final one to give the actual opinion/judgment. There's also the outlet to consider, because a capsule review from a nationally known paper like The Guardian is going to be more impressive than if my local paper, which has at most half the circulation of TG, were to review the same short film. It's not a knock against my local paper, just that the higher circulation means that TG is presumably going to be more discerning because they have a larger audience. (IE, more mainstream publications are more likely to focus on mainstream stuff whereas a smaller paper could review something off the wall because there's potentially less red tape and so on.)

It's pretty rare that short films get reviews at all and when they do, the length is usually short because they're going to be watching it with a batch of other stuff at a film festival or packaged with a full-length movie. It's rare that a short film is the sole focus, because there's a bit of risk in covering short films.

So my next focus then is whether or not the article will be anything other than a paragraph of content. I do see two interviews on there and while sure, they're primary, they can still be used to expand the article and give it at least somewhat more encyclopedic value. We could probably improve the production section to be more than a big quote and we could also add a release section. I see that it was given a re-release at a 2020 film festival, the Lyon Festival Hallucinations Collectives, so that's definitely something. I suppose that last bit could qualify as a bit of notability but one would need to find sourcing and honestly, I never feel comfortable arguing for a keep that way unless it's at a very notable festival or the institution holding the festival or retrospective are very notable. This is close, but it still feels pretty weak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the director notable? A good alternative might be to create an article for the director and summarize this there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he has an article: Robert Morgan (filmmaker). Maybe just summarize the release and production there? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've greatly improved the article. It looks fairly proper now. I wouldn't mind this being kept. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:37, 22 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!} 23:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All in all, coverage and nomination seem to show it might be notable. A redirect to the director seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irie Papuni[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 union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Given his age and ongoing career, draftification seems to be a good ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Think there's enough in the article, plus a search for a weak keep here. Draftification is a suitable WP:ATD if deemed not also .Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 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!} 22:28, 16 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!} 23:03, 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 14:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Empire: A Talk by Chalmers Johnson[edit]

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

Article about a documentary film, not properly referenced as passing WP:NFILM. The main notability claim on offer here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself without evidence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about it -- but the only references here are a directory entry and a book review which fails to mention this film at all for the purposes of helping to support the notability of the film. The film's subject was certainly notable enough that his article isn't going anywhere, so a redirect to his biographical article would be reasonable, but this article as written isn't properly establishing the film as independently notable enough for its own separate article at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the recording and Johnson were important at the time this was filmed. As a former advisor to the CIA and government about Asian affairs, he was outspoken in books, TV interviews, and newspaper articles warning of the coming 9/11 attack, seeing it as "Blowback" to US policy - the name of his first book in the trilogy published before the terrorist attack. He was also just as outspoken about the mistake it was for GW Bush to go into Iraq. Johnson was prophetic - but that was then. This talk was the culmination of his American Empire Project which reviewed the points in his three books on the topic, However, the talk itself is now available on YouTube, so, I agree to delete it - unless just being a page for a commercially released DVD is worthy of a page. Ellis408 (talk) 23:52, 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!} 22:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bastien Scimone[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 French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found plenty of trivial mentions, both in English (The Yorkshire Post, Sky Sports, Warrington Guardian) and French (Le Petit Journal, L'Indépendant, La Dépêche), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:43, 9 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) 19:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - French international rugby league footballer who has played as a professional in the Super League for the Catalans Dragons on a number of occasions. Additionally as per the cited sources has played as a professional for Toulouse Olympique and at international level for France B, as well as the full national side.Fleets (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got any WP:SIGCOV? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 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!} 22:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to draft: Young Catalans player, will likely have more written about him in the future. Mn1548 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 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 no consensus‎ and no indicaiton further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Henriques[edit]

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

Given that most external links go to either gregghenriques.com or unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org and not to very many well-known independent sources that would significantly cover him, I have a suspicion that this article might not survive the AfD test in its current state. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Psychology, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- the article is a mess, but the subject has a credible claim at notability as a full professor of psychiatry at a well-known university, with a pretty good citation trail. The impact does, however, look a little bit low for the field; if someone with more domain-specific knowledge could weigh it I'd appreciate it. (Adding signature -- -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistiing due to low participation. Please remember to sign all comments made in a deletion discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 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. Waggers TALK 10:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police Trainer[edit]

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

Lack of notability, was unable to find any reliable sources showing notability. Was already dePRODded in 2010. Waxworker (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 23:48, 16 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!} 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the subject of arcade games, the game really has a popularity. It fulfills the notability. Being an old article, may have been based on a reference for so long, its mention is spot on in search and other places. I have improved the article. Ontor22 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ontor22: - I've removed the sources you added - Hard Drive is a satire website similar to The Onion, and the article was a joke. GameFAQs is an unreliable WP:USERGENERATED source and unreliable per WP:VG/RS. The reliability of the Arcade Club database is unclear to me, but it isn't substantial coverage regardless. Waxworker (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Be mindful of WP:ITSPOPULAR, understand what you mean but notability-type arguments not based on policy around WP:GNG can have issues. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are not reliable, sorry. It was a good move to revert that. Contributor892z (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Short articles in EGM2 and Retro Gamer: [14], [15], not significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Asian American Professionals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I agree with the previous nomination, which closed as "soft delete" and was contested. This organization does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Most sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not convey notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually every mention I can find is cursory or trivial, not substantial. I cannot find any qualifying sources to establish WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already subject to an AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option again.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:11, 17 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!} 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources not from the organization itself are news coverage (probably failing WP:ROUTINE) about particular events held or awards given by it rather than the organization as a whole. Hatman31 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Thwala[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 21:50, 23 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) 21:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 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 redirect‎ to Sefirot. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth[edit]

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

This disambiguation page doesn't really seem to have a use, given it only contains two subjects, Sefirot and Sephiroth, which can easily have a hatnote at the top of their articles to accomplish the same disambiguation purpose. Given that Sephiroth is the name, and not Sefirot, which is only a similar sounding word, I'd suggest reclassing Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to just Sephiroth, and then keeping the hatnote that leads to Sefirot in the case that someone is looking for the concept. Overall, though, this page seems unneeded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Religion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEOTHER and WP:DABPARTIAL. Unnecessary disambiguation page that can be resolved with a hatnote. Nothing else can logically be added to this. Agree with nom that Sephiroth is clearly the primary topic of the name so that article should be moved to Sephiroth without the disambiguator as well. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, there have been a few previous discussions relevant to explain why things are this way:

older ≠ wiser 02:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WikiNav there is no primary topic, and in fact more clicks go to Sefirot than the FF character. Therefore despite it seeming "obvious" to video game fans, it clearly has a different meaning to the greater public. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic for Sephiroth is not Sefirot, regardless of the relative pageviews. While they may be transliterating the same Hebrew term--and I'm not sure that's actually been established without looking into the FF character--similar but different names and content is exactly what hatnotes are for, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica clearly says that "Sephiroth" is an alternate name for Sefirot. I think it's highly likely the FF character's name was based on said mythology, also given the naming of Jenova, which resembles a certain Biblical name of God. Knowing this, both Sefirot and the FF character are viable topics for the term, and a DAB page is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I also support redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote per longterm significance if that would allow for a consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. No primary topic so WP:ONEOTHER is satisfied by keeping the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Sefirot per ONEOTHER. If Sefirot is indeed the primary target, per ZXC, then Sephiroth should ~~be deleted and~~ become a redirect to Sefirot. There's no policy support for a two-page DAB. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Sefirot was the primary target, but that there was no primary, though it might be arguable that Sefirot is primary by the longterm significance criterion. In that case, though, deletion is unnecessary, a primary redirect can simply be made. The main thing I am certain of is that the video game character is not primary, so there is zero scenario in which deletion of this page is merited.

DABs can certainly be 2 pages if there is no clear meaning of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, changed position. Saving thousands of people a DAB click per month is an end unto itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to here per nom. That's honestly the most logical choice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Do you have a response to the WikiNav information showing that more people click through to Sefirot than to the FF character from here? Because it seems to indicate that making the character primary is the illogical choice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: It could also be a sake of curiosity and is the top result Zx. I mean I know if I was looking up Sephiroth and the first thing I saw was that my curiosity would be piqued.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that I had a gut feeling that 95% of the visitors to this page were actually looking for the religious term, but got distracted by the FF character and curiously clicked on that link instead. It might sound ludicrous, but if I asked for evidence to refute it, there is none. The only thing we know for certain is the relative pageviews, therefore similarly, that argument cannot be confirmed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx you asked a question and I gave a response. Even WikiNav seems to indicate most of the results are coming from a search result. In any event, I'm standing by my decision on this. Even a basic search result on Google indicates that the fictional character is the primarily subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After thinking about this a bit, this request is in essence a request to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth although it is presented in the guise of discussing deletion of a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page. As disambiguation is necessary, whether with through hatnotes or a disambiguation page, this page cannot be deleted until there is consensus to move established with a transparent and properly listed MOVE discussion (not through a backdoor AfD). And the watchers of Sephirot should be notified of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also OK with redirecting this to Sephirot with a hatnote to the Final Fantasy character. However, that same redirect was previously changed to a disambiguation page in this discussion. Pinging the participants: Steel1943, Dream Focus, Havradim. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Yes, I copied Shooterwalker. The hatnote will redirect people just as easily or as well as this unnecessary twodab. ~~Unless someone can provide evidence this is an actual alternate name/spelling for Sefirot and not simply a similar word, the character should be moved over it.~~ I do see its noted as a transliteration in the lead, which my eyes refused to register earlier. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess hat note does work. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already a hatnote, and it would make sense to have one. Basically saying "delete per WP:ONEOTHER." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These delete arguments do not address the WP:SURPRISE issue when people - actually most searchers - are looking for a religious term and land on a Final Fantasy character. While the DAB page may not technically be required, WP:ONEOTHER is specifically for when a primary topic exists. The FF character is in no way a primary topic for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while Sephirot is the usual English transliteration in Jewish Kabbalah, Sephiroth is the most common transliteration in Hermetic Qabalah for the same topic. Therefore a dab page should be maintained. Alternatively, redirect to Sephirot with a hatnote for the FF character. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should Sefirot be deemed the primary topic, I'm fine with Sefirot instead being the primary redirect. However, the article should have a hatnote leading to the video game character given the similar titles. In any case, the disambig page is unnecessary given this can just be handled by hatnotes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sephiroth to Sefirot and add a hatnote to game character. Sefirot is the primary topic per WP:PT2 due to "long-term significance". --Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth. I feel like this isn't a Mario situation, where the character is so big that they get priority over the name. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In order to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth. Redirecting this to Sefirot because it doesn't seem that likely of a spelling mistake, and the current two disambiguation targets get around the same # of views. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it's not a spelling error. I still think Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) should be moved here, and a hatnote can be added for Sefirot. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what first comes to mind, but about what is correct in policy. Moving the page clearly isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot, add a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), I don't think Sephiroth would get priority over the name due to Sefirot having significantly more long term significance than the character.-Samoht27 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2024
Redirect per above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, straight-up "delete" is not applicable here since the title refers to at least one existent subject. (Otherwise, I do not have an opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), per Samoht27 and MKsLifeInANutshell. This is the only fully policy-compliant option, as there is a clear primary topic of this WP:TWODABS situation. BD2412 T 20:46, 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. Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Avijit[edit]

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

Candidate in the current Indian elections. Fails WP:NPOL, coverage appears otherwise routine. He can't inherit notability from his grandparents or mother. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. AusLondonder (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply being nominated for the general election in 2024 doesn't automatically confer notability as per WP:NPOL. However, if the individual wins and is elected as a Member of Parliament, they would then meet the notability criteria. Currently, there's a lack of in-depth coverage on the subject, with the cited sources being primarily press releases. Grabup (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is national spokesperson of Indian National Congress and we have article like Nupur Sharma. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject starting from his grandmother Sumitra Devi (politician) to his mother Meira Kumar.-Admantine123 (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelle Slabbert[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 South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any decent coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Series Adventures#Decide Your Destiny. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Corinthian Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Series Adventures#Decide Your Destiny - Appears to be a completely non-notable licensed book that has no coverage in reliable sources. The one review being used as a source is someone's personal blog, and thus not a reliable source. Searches did not turn up any kind of coverage or reviews, outside of simple product listings. It is already listed in the appropriate section of the list of books its belongs to, and as there is no content to merge, it should be redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Jfire (talk) 02:51, 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam at the 2026 Asian Games[edit]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. It's still too early for this article (and other similar ones) to exist. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Vietnam. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Frank Anchor 00:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way WP:TOOSOON. In 6 months time, it will still be too soon, and so I object to draftifying this as draftspace is not an indefinite holding area. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly. It is very reasonable to have some level of information about a country's participation in international competition two years ahead of time. Therefore, drafspace would be the exact opposite of an indefinite holding area If this proves not to be the case, the draft can easily be deleted in October 2024. Frank Anchor 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For most events like this, the qualifying tournaments will be at most a year before the event i.e. in 2025. Unless there is evidence that there are 2026 Asian Games qualifiers this year, and so we'll know some qualified Vietnamese competitors in 6 months time, then draftspace is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-encyclopedic. The current entry contains nothing of value. The desire to create articles way ahead of time needs to be stamped out. It's an unhealthy "I was here first" culture which does not add value to Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 16:23, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Horton[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby player, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league, Rugby union, and New Zealand. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:SPORTCRIT: see here, here, and here. He played in the New Zealand Māori team that won the 2008 IRB Pacific Nations Cup. He made 79 appearances for Hawke's Bay, Otago, and Southland in provincial rugby, 21 appearances for the Highlanders in Super Rugby, played 5 matches for NZ under-21, and 4 for New Zealand Māori. 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Paora (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think there's just about enough here for a WP:GNG pass, given that there is more than likely similar offline coverage in local NZ media from when he played. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 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 merge‎ to The Nelson Lee Library. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Night Hawk (comics)[edit]

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

I initially WP:PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable fictional character. None of the current references are reliable, secondary sources. Searches just turned up very trivial mentions - no significant coverage in reliable sources." It was later de-prodded, with the suggestion that a full discussion should be held due to the subject being a pre-internet subject, so I am bringing it to AFD. To give further details on my WP:BEFORE results, the only results I was able to find in actual reliable sources were extremely brief, usually just a sentence or two stating "An early example of this kind of character was Night Hawk" and that's about it, such as these two books. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Rorshacma (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect/merge to the The Nelson Lee Library seems more sensible than deletion. I'm assuming you've checked the physical media covering British story papers, like Book & Magazine Collector, Boys Will Be Boys, etc., etc. rather than just using Google. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV. Would support a redirect if people can agree on a valid target. But it's an unlikely search term and deletion is also fine. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Nelson Lee Library, agreeing with BoomboxTestarossa. We do have the mentioned secondary sources, which should count for something, but does not seem enough to be to establish stand-alone notability (I cannot see The British Superhero, p. 41, myself). So merge as WP:AtD. Daranios (talk)
Merge to The Nelson Lee Library as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Nelson Lee Library absolutely Sansbarry (talk) 01:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Nelson Lee Library.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Parsons (producer)[edit]

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

Article only has a single source, not enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:MILL. One sources is by definition not coverage in multiple sources. There's no major legacy here. Merely being a producer does not automatically inherit notability. Producers are dime a dozen, and for that reason we often delete their articles.
Delete lacks in depth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William James Crawford[edit]

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

Unref article, and I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Photography, Football, Rugby union, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see some of his works online, but I don't see anything to suggest notability. Govvy (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreffed, fails WP:BIO. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unref fails WP:SIGCOV, unless someone can find print sources very quickly. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy is off the table given the time passed since nomination. There is nothing extant to redirect this to, however if a target is created, this can be redirected at editorial discretion. Star Mississippi 02:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Huizar[edit]

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

A defamatory article based on WP:OR with a non-free image improperly labeled as such and a subject that fails WP:GNG. Lettlre (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Police, Education, and Washington. Lettlre (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete/Convert - I feel like the shooter himself doesn't meet notability guidelines, but the event does, I feel like the article should be converted into something similar to 2014 Isla Vista killings, where the event itself is published, but not focused on the perp. Gonzafer001 (talk) 21:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's plausible Red Slash 16:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, we should move the page to focus less on the perp, and more on the actual story. Gonzafer001 (talk) 03:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP. Suspected murderer on the run, not yet captured by authorities. Also, the image of the suspect is not licensed for our use. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G10/A7.Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a speedy. The copyrighted image can be removed. This article is not "entirely negative in tone and unsourced." (emphasis mine). It may be entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia, but CNN has covered it, so it's unreasonable to argue it's A7. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the speedy tag and added a link to the CNN coverage. That doesn't mean I think this should be kept: it means I don't think any of our speedy deletion criteria apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/speedy delete per WP:NOTNEWS LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - this neither is WP:OR (did you... read the references??), nor does it fail the WP:GNG based on the substantial news coverage. Red Slash 01:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main source is a self-described zine that basically makes a bunch of allegations on a non-convicted individual. That's what I mean by OR. Lettlre (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only source--it's been covered by national news and extensively covered by local news. Even so, that "zine" article is extensively sourced with interviews from people directly involved, like Elias's former boss at the police department. Red Slash 17:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the above user, this article and its tone is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia (WP:BLPBALANCE) and inappropriately POV, incredibly violating WP:PERP; as the subject has been caught there's no use for the article as-is currently. The picture has been removed due to a poor licensing rationale and as the image involves children in no way involved with the subject or the story, and a BLPBALANCE-violating title in itself. Nate • (chatter) 02:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a WP:BLP violation. The article is almost completely unsourced contentious claims about a living person. Jfire (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP issues have been resolved, but this still fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRIME. Coverage is unlikely to be WP:SUSTAINED. Jfire (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely sourced. Red Slash 16:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is all over the news in the Northwest. He was tracked down and committed suicide. It's being presented on the news as factual including interviews with people he worked with. He isn't a living person but a recently deceased person so I realize BLP still applies. The name of the minor victim has not been included here or mentioned in the news but they spoke with her family. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to 2024 Yakima murder and child abduction case, or something similar. They issued an Amber Alert about this case in the middle of the night, and it has certainly been heavily covered, but I agree that naming the article after Huizar doesn't entirely make sense since nothing about him is notable except for his crimes. See WP:BLP1E (although he is dead it is still relevant).LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you named the wrong city speaks to the fact that he actually was notable for multiple crimes across Eastern Washington. His rape of a 13-year-old at his middle school took place in Yakima; his double murder happened in West Richland, an hour southeast.

Because of this, it feels awkward to me to name an article about several different, interconnected crimes, afte just one of them... the one thing they all have in common is Elias. Red Slash 16:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jenma Films International[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The source cited as being the source for the entire text portion of the article is an obituary which makes only a brief mention of the company. And so the text of the article is about the person who died, not the company. The other refs are about films, not the company. North8000 (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP: No significant coverage about the company. Sources are mostly about the films they have produced which fall under routine coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AccuSystems[edit]

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

The article doesn't show any reason for notability and reads as an advertisement. Nigel757 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Colorado. Skynxnex (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline A7, does not really make any recognisable CCS. Also WP:BROCHURE as of current version, but the pre-UPE edited versions available in the article history are better in that regard. I cannot find anything beyond name checks, not even passing mentions really. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once I removed the spammy promo links, the article was even shorter. Nothing to suggest this company met GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSmooth[edit]

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

Software. No assertion of notability, no third party references, tagged since 2019. Sandstein 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability. I could not find any proper coverage. Unreferenced duffs like these should either be improved or be nuked out of the orbit. I highly doubt anyone can come up with a minimum of 3 sources that'd help establish its cause of notability. [This AFD has been relisted once, and so far no other participation. It'd be a shame if this goes without a consensus.] X (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable software. Zero independent sources. Jfire (talk) 03:01, 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 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!} 22:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Marques (architect)[edit]

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

No independent sources given that show notability. Of the links provided one is to his staff biography and the other doesn't mention him at all. All I found were items that show he exists but don't show notability. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I just noticed the name of the articles author, Brunomarkes. A variant of the subjects name. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not eligible for speedy deletion due to the article probably being written by the same guy, serving as a promotion, and not going through AfC but instead being created by a page move? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing stopping an editor from moving a draft to main space. I didn't feel that any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applied. So easier to go with AfD and then if it is re-posted it can be G4. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, Germany, Portugal, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ARCHITECT. Self-written bio, reads like self-promotion. No details of individual accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:27, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riaan Engelbrecht[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 South African rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Not to be confused with the author of the same name. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:13, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy (concept)[edit]

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

I was about to nominate this for A10 as a duplicate of Life expectancy. However this does seem to expand upon the concept so what should be done here? Cleo Cooper (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) Delete A10 would seem entirely sensible here, the two are about the same concept, and this is a far shorter and less substantial text. If you think there's anything worth merging, go right ahead, but we should not have a CFORK. Delete without a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly as a merge to Life expectancy Industrial Insect (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danielaanaiza, the creator, maybe you could explain why you created this article? You put Not to be confused with Life expectancy. on this article so you were aware of Life expectancy. Is there something we're missing? Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely redundant to Life expectancy and very OR-ish at points, to boot. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, We shouldn't hold articles which are redundant. Samoht27 (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:02, 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. Per sources indicated. Also no BLP concern. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl von Arensdorff[edit]

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

PROD decdlined w suggestion to AfD instead: This article has been WP:UNSOURCED for 15 years and fails WP:GNG in every search I could do. Maybe there is a case to merge with Friedrich von Arenstorff, but he seems poorly sourced as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sweden. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Denmark, Germany, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage in this book and he may have an entry or partial entry in the 1929 edition of the Svensk uppslagsbok, but I could not find a digitized version of the latter so I'm not sure. A redirect to his notable brother Friedrich von Arensdorff is a suitable WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The entry in the Dansk Biografisk Leksikon, as well as there being a very good indication of further WP:OFFLINE coverage, seems sufficient to me. There is another much smaller entry in the Den Store Danske Encyklopædi here. Curbon7 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a source has been added and inclusion in the Danish DNB indicates notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "Danish DNB" you are referring to, but one source is usually not considered sufficient per WP:GNG. Agree with Curbon7 tho that if those sources come through he probably would pass it. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I assume you meen keep per WP:ANYBIO 3., did not realize Dansk biografisk Lexikon was a DNB. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, weak keep per WP:ANYBIO 3. is probably the right call. You can WP:TROUT me for missing this. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:00, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swedistan[edit]

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

This is little more than an Internet meme that began its existence as a 4chan hoax. Most of the references in the article don't even use the term "Swedistan". As the term is not commonly used, it has not been the object of significant coverage. Pichpich (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Internet, and Sweden. Skynxnex (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and anyway the references barely support the claims made, as nom points out. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of internet culture, but not notable by our standards. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Yes, there are a couple of good sources, but as a whole are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Isaac Peach. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peach Boxing[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. A boxing gym business. Zero references on the gym/business. All of them are about events related to boxers. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 15:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Boxing, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Peach Traumnovelle (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Peach. There's a lack of coverage about the gym itself. The three New Zealand boxing gym of the year awards were given by a blogger, so it shows no significance to me. It seems like Isaac Peach is the most significant part of the gym and much of the two articles seem to overlap about fighters he has trained. It's possible that the individual article may not be WP notable either, but that's a discussion for another time. Papaursa (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Peach. I wrote this article because of the Boxing Alley. But yeah you both make a point. --Bennyaha (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ nomination withdrawn as article has been speedy-redirected back to the prior election by another editor. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Connely[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, unelected candidates for political office do not get articles on that basis per se -- the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates qualify for articles only if either (a) they already had some other basis for notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) they can show credible grounds for why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies.
But this is written more like a campaign brochure than an encyclopedia article, and is referenced to two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and two hits of purely run of the mill campaign coverage, which is not enough to establish that he would satisfy either of the conditions for the permanent notability of an unelected candidate.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is already grounds for an article now. Note as well that this title previously existed as a redirect to the first election that he already ran in and lost, until being turned into a standalone article within the past two days on the basis of his new candidacy — so restoring the original redirect, or repointing it to the current election, would also be options. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nebraska. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; very fluffy piece with little to no evidence of notability currently. No objection to draftifying if consensus is that it is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. But it would need to be edited and sourced before publishing. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is nothing more than a 2021 electioneering bio for "an unknown political newcomer" He didn't win, so this article has no real purpose on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the attempted basis for creation was that he's running again in another election now. That, of course, isn't grounds for an article to exist any more than his failure to win a previous election is, but still should be clarified nonetheless. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for a political candidate. Selling seeds as a youth isn't notable, rest is simply a retelling of his life story. This isn't suitable for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 04:14, 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 Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen O'Donnell[edit]

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

I’m wary when I see candidates who did not have articles get them in the run-up to an election. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn’t grant notability. That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy. She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman. Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was red linked through Forum for Peace and Reconciliation long before candidacy for DEM, this being the major jumping off point for a page. That with work with the Safefood advisory board, founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement, seemed like valid notability. ChocoElephant (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast. While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today. My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:11, 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 14:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Rivero (journalist)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography, and in a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I can find is what's cited here. The rest is primary sources and passing mentions. The only mention I can find of awards is on primary sources like her website, with no mention of her on the Emmys or AP websites. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as the winner of a Rocky Mountain Emmy Award in 2007. The website archives are incomplete, going back only to 2011. She is widely cited though in RS as an Emmy winner in passing (for example https://www.local10.com/news/2014/01/10/teacher-charged-with-having-sex-with-student/ ) The off-hand mentions of awards from the associated press also occur. It would be career suicide to lie about that kind of thing for a journalist. So all and all, not seeing a good argument here for not passing the criteria for those WP:SNGs.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: that article actually quotes an unrelated student named Claudia Rivero, and the Emmy winner is some other reporter. And I still can't find a secondary source about the reporter Claudia Rivero winning an Emmy. Wikishovel (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are able to locate a list of winners of the 2007 Rocky Mountain Emmy Awards (which should be feasible in off-line refs for sure) it should verify the win. She is on the nominees list https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5970167/2007-rocky-mountain-emmyr-nominees but unfortunately this does not list the winners.4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - if there is confusion about different people with the same/similar names then I'm thinking the sensible move is to draft until there is clarity who is who. JMWt (talk) 07:43, 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!} 06:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable journalist; we only consider Regional Emmys notable with much more sourcing than what's here. This is simply a list of where the person has worked, nothing showing why they're notable. I can only find PR or primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw Deal (card game)[edit]

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

An article on a defunct collectable card game that has been tagged as needing secondary sources since 2008. Of the four sources cited, only two are independent, and neither appears to include anything approaching the level of significant coverage necessary to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Almost all the content is entirely unsourced, and consists of a how-to guide for playing the game, rather than anything approaching secondary-sourced encyclopaedic commentary. A Google search finds nothing that might rectify the problems. In short, non-notable fancruft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO for a defunct card game, with primary sourcing used. There might be coverage in the Dummies book, but we'd need more than that. I don't find anything, and it's been almost 20 yrs now, likely nothing else will be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If it makes a difference, there are some links in the "Further reading" section about articles found in Scrye. BOZ (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the articles was written by "Barron Vangor Toth, Raw Deal co-designer", and is clearly not an independent source. The remaining two actually say very little regarding the merits of the game, or anything else of consequence to anyone not already intimately familiar with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 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 redirect‎ to Boards of Canada. Changes to the target can be discussed on its talk page or the band's talk page. ✗plicit 12:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boc Maxima[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Did a WP:BEFORE search and everything I found mentions the album in passing. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 12:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Scotland. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boards of Canada: Found nothing on the album. Not too surprising given "limited to 50 copies world-wide, which were handed out to friends and family" and it being two years before their first major release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or redirect to Boards of Canada discography#Limited-only releases. There's certainly no compelling reason to keep the article. Richard3120 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably makes sense. Just not enough coverage of this album that I can see. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:22, 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 no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barby Storage Reservoir[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years, not seeing much which could be considered against the notability criteria for inclusion. It certainly exists, the trouble is finding substantial reliable sources about it. As an ATD we could merge to the reservoir section on Severn Trent JMWt (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and England. JMWt (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now sourced. However, if there is merge, it should be to Draycote Water. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comments on the improvements to the article since its nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 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 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in France[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and France. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Shankargb (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: Note that "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rational. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apatia[edit]

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

No notability evident in the article per WP:BAND, mainly just states that they're straight edge and played some concerts. Additionally, I can't find any real coverage on them on the web. InDimensional (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Poland. InDimensional (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know how the nom looked for sources, but they managed to miss and ignore the source cited in the article, from Onet.pl, which meets SIGCOV and is reliable. So that's one - and it calls this band "legendary". Pl wiki lists two more sources, from a notable NGO, which calls one of its albums "cult" ([16]). The band is mentioned in academic works, including in English, ex [17] "most of the best Polish punk bands such as Apatia...". Other Polish sources: [18] (onet again), [19] (Gazeta Wyborcza - Polish main newspaper of record), [20] (Życie Warszawy) I am not going to list more sources, but plenty exist even in English. The nominator deserves a WP:TROUT for terrible execution of WP:BEFORE, since finding sources does not even require speaking Polish (not that these days, with solid machine translation built into most browsers, this should be much of an excuse). PS. That said, the claim about them being mentioned in PWN I could not verify. The article needs improvement, here and on pl wiki, but this is no reason to nuke it. Sources I found here should be enough for anyone who cares to improve this article to get it to DYK level... maybe even I'll do it one day if I find the time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Piotrus that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, preferably with at least pasting the mentioned sources into the article. Geschichte (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zwartbosch Private Nature Reserve[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, tagged since 2019 Greenman (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any sources other than maps and Tripadvisor listings. Does not meet [WP:GNG]] nor WP:CORP. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:49, 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 12:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Cup Final referees[edit]

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

Irrelevant article of mostly non-notable people, which doesn't meet WP:GNG. We tend to only have articles like this for major events like FIFA World Cup referees, not for national cup tournaments like this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, and Algeria. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not relevant for Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NLIST. Svartner (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:13, 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. ✗plicit 12:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rabbitt[edit]

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

Local politicians don’t have presumed notability per WP:NPOL and leading the council for a year as Cathaoirleach doesn’t get them past the notability threshold either. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. In terms of NPOL, the role of chair (mayor) of Galway County Council isn't an "international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office". In terms of SIGCOV, the only sources in the article are either primary or the very definition of trivial passing mentions. In my own WP:BEFORE a Google search (which which returns barely 50 results) and a news search (which returns only opinion pieces and passing mentions) does not amount to SIGCOV. Certainly any more than we would expect for any other candidate for a local office. As we (quite correctly) do not have articles for Mayor of Galway County Council or Cathaoirleach of Galway County Council, I do not see how a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD. Or draftification or other forms of ATD. Hence the only action I can support is deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and per WP:NPOL. Spleodrach (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the provision of significant substance about their work in the role and significant reliable sourcing to support it — but this is just "mayor who existed", supported by a minimal smattering of primary and unreliable sourcing with no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy referencing shown at all, which is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxila Business School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Feels that it doesnt meets NCORP, even before search returns routine coverage. Was declined twice before moved by page creator. Toadette^Edit! 09:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is fact does NOT meet NCORP. References are not reliable. I also did a BEFORE and found that all the press is NEWSORGINDIA so likely an attempt to game the system through paid media. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP no reliable sources, Majorly WP:NEWSORGINDIA citations. Grabup (talk) 06:02, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bubang Techron Co.[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. only source in article is completely unrelated to the subject (and looks like spam). search brings up databases. ltb d l (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and South Korea. ltb d l (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find anything on Google or Scholar beyond WP:ORGTRIV. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Urge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Ewing[edit]

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

Promotional article fails WP:BIO. No content worth merging. Schierbecker (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Urge: I don't see extensive coverage outside the band. For all this is, the paragraph can be incorporated into the band's article. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Urge - I am familiar with this singer and he has done nothing independently notable outside his main band. The fact that he owns a restaurant and will be the subject of a film can be mentioned at the band's article, and that's about it. Otherwise this article is clearly a promotional attempt. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:39, 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gharqad[edit]

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

Hello Wikipedians,

I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia. In fact, upon checking further, I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

Even this article has a Critical assessment section, where it says that the topic "Gharqad" is insignificant and antisemitic. I fully agree with that, and that's why I believe there is no place for such an insignificant and antisemitic post on Wikipedia. On the other hand, I don't think Wikipedia is a place for expressing any personal research or opinion, so there is no point in having a critical assessment section.

This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

Thank you. Your valid opinion is needed.

- Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. Sajid (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. https://ar-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D8%BA%D8%B1%D9%82%D8%AF?_x_tr_sl=ar&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp The corresponding article in the Arabic Wikipedia treats Gharqad as a synonym for the genus Nitraria, and includes some references that could be added to the English article. The Hebrew Wikipedia article he:ר'רקד also has some references that might be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deletion, here is why

Why is this article nominated for deletion? That topic is extremely discussed; there are religious-studies articles about it, major international newspaper articles about it, vibrant discord about it in the general media and so on.

About some things User:Sajidmahamud835 said above:

I don't know why we need an article about a biblical plant on Wikipedia

This plant is by no means biblical, it's hadithic.

I didn't find any strong references to this plant in religious scriptures like the Holy Bible or the Holy Quran.

Have you found any references at all in these books? There aren't. Again, it's hadific and hadith is a major literature in Islam.

This article itself claims that among the hundreds of books of Islamic hadith narrations, there are only two that actually mention this plant. Even if we think it's an Islamic topic, there are not enough Islamic references. Also, this article proves that two hadiths are misinterpreted with a few points. Again, Wikipedia is not a place for investigating hadith or any religious book.

So what? These are major hadith collections and there are more than two references for this plant in these hadiths; in fact these hadiths are from the broader hadith group of The stones and trees hadiths.

If we want to consider this article as an article about the Gharqad plant, this article actually confuses the readers. This article provides no specific details on the plant. Instead, it says Nitraria retusa, Nitraria schoberi, Lycium shawii, Lycium schweinfurthii could be some candidates for the gharqad tree. But there is no reference to that. Wikipedia doesn't accept any personal research.

The first versions of the article didn't have this mess; it mentioned only the genuses Nitraria and Lycium.

It looks like this article is on the topic of Antisemitism in Islam. In that case, we can move some contents that have proper references to that article.

Why? What is your problem that there would be a single unified article about this, easily maintained in one place by the community?

This is my opinion. I believe this article in this format will mislead people and create more hate towards Jews. This article supports Muslim and Christian extremists to validate their ideologies. On the other hand, for the Zionist moment, it also fuels their ideology that all Muslims are antisemitic.

I don't know why you thought about Christian extremists and Zionist extremists because they don't accept this text as sacred but anyway, why would the truth about this concept mislead anyone if that person doesn't believe in a invading version of Islam?

What do you think about this article? Should we keep it by reformatting properly and removing antisemitic and personal research-based comments, or remove this and move relevant content to the Antisemitism in Islam page?

How can you make something which is inherantly antisemitic (anti Jewish to be precise) as not antisemetic? I don't think Sunni Muslims will take you seriously if you'll tell them that their books are different than what they evidently are. No need in deleting anything besides maybe the pictures, and summerize the opener passage a bit.

Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 08:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow contributor,

Firstly, I extend a warm welcome and sincere gratitude for your valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Your input is greatly appreciated.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this matter. Your insights will certainly be taken into account as we navigate this discussion.

Allow me to address some of the points you raised regarding the deletion discussion:

Regarding the term "Biblical plant," it's important to note that the term "Bible" encompasses various religious scriptures, not solely those of Christianity. It's analogous to the Quran in Islam. My apologies if this caused any confusion.

As for the term "Hadithic," I understand your concern. Perhaps "from Hadith tradition" would be a more suitable phrasing to avoid any misinterpretation. Still, is it necessary to have a separate article on a plant from Hadith tradition?

In Wikipedia, we adhere to strict guidelines regarding sourcing, especially when it comes to religious texts. While Hadith is indeed a significant aspect of Islamic tradition, we must ensure that information is presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.

The complexity of Hadith presents challenges in citation. While we respect its importance within Islamic scholarship, we must exercise caution in its usage to maintain clarity and avoid misinterpretation. I won't blame you, its common among Muslims to use Hadith as reference, but when its comes to such controversial stuffs, Hadith isn't enough. I am not saying we don't respect Hadith, we just need some verifiable reference. You claimed all Jews will follow the anticrist (Al-Masih ad-Dajjal), who will be pretending as Jesus, and later all of them will be defeated by real Jesus and the [Imam]] of Muslims, this is totaly antisemitic. Its like saying all Jews are bad. We even saw this kind of publication before the The Holocaust.

As its directly against Jews and makes them look Evil, Wikipedia cannot emphasis this kind of articles. Maybe we can keep some of the contents in Antisemitism in Islam or in the Nitraria article.

Regarding the mention of specific groups within Islam for example Sunni or Shia, it's crucial to maintain neutrality and avoid privileging one perspective over another. We cannot say 2 hadith book that has mentioned this plant is better than other hundreds of books especially the four books of Shia. Wikipedia strives to present a balanced view that encompasses diverse viewpoints within a topic.

Regarding the article itself, my intent in initiating this discussion was to address concerns about its overall quality and relevance. Whether through revision, consolidation, or removal, our goal is to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy and neutrality.

Look, having too many news on something or too many people talking on a topic doesn't make it legitimate to have a dedicated article on that topic in Wikipedia. It will be shame full for Wikipedia if extremists (whatever they are Muslim, Christian, Zionist, Jewish, or Atheist) quote Wikipedia while spreading hate speech. Having this kind of Article will aid them spreading their ideology.

I appreciate your efforts to uphold Wikipedia's standards and your commitment to constructive dialogue. Together, we can work towards a resolution that aligns with Wikipedia's principles and fosters a platform of inclusive knowledge sharing.

Thank you for your continued engagement in this important discussion.

"Warm regards,

Sajid (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajid, hello. It's hadithic, not biblical or quranic and not anything else and yes "appears in the hadith" is a good phrasing and it's important that there will be an article about it because it's both notable and concerns the life of people and taken seriously by some muslims of the invading version of Islam. I didn't claim anything by myself; it's all there in these hadiths plain and simple and quoted by the letter. I believe the article has strong notability and the community can decide further. Thanks. 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what is the policy-based reason that the article should be deleted? Please keep it to a sentence or two, the wall of text above doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @Oaktree b ,
Thank you. Here are the policy-based reasons:
- Neutral point of view (NPOV): The article may fail to present information in a neutral manner, especially if it contains potentially antisemitic content. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
- Verifiability: Content sourced from religious texts like Hadith should be verifiable and presented in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines. Wikipedia:Verifiability
- No original research: Content should be based on reliable secondary sources rather than personal interpretation or analysis. Wikipedia:No_original_research
Also, there is some false information, but that could be fixed. Overall, in my view, its a useless article promoting antisemitism dehumanizing Jews, and telling a story that gives legitimacy to extremists to kill innocent Jews.

Thank you for your valuable time. I am seeking your opinion on this.

Regards,

Sajid (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of these is a deletion criterion. These are criteria for editing, which is what you ought to be doing with this article if you don't approve of it. Central and Adams (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no particular problem with this article. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gidonb. Thank you for your valuable opinion. Any advice on improving this article to make it better? Sajid (talk) 12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Since you asked, I would recommend not making any changes. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Ridiculous nomination. Not only do the sources already in the article meet the GNG, but there are plenty more from GScholar which could be included. Nominator should fix the article if they don't approve, but the subject is very, very clearly notable. Central and Adams (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, per the explanation above, all can be fixed by editing the article. The sources used all seem to be RS and we have extensive coverage. We don't delete things for simply not being neutral in tone, that can easily be rewritten. Easy !Keep Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nom has yet to provide a convincing explanation as to why the article ought to be deleted. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 16:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. LizardJr8 (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The "hadith of the Gharqad tree" is semi-notorious in discussions of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was kind of the emotional centerpiece of the 1988 Hamas charter (it mysteriously went missing in the 2017 version of the charter, after repeated quoting of that passage from the 1988 charter made them sound like crazed Jew-hating loons). AnonMoos (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since no valid rationale for deletion was brought forward and no one ever thought that this should be deleted, I believe this is eligible for quick closure. I have expressed my opinion so will refrain from closing but would appreciate it if the next person could close. There are already so many other open AfDs! gidonb (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant concept. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - To expand upon what AnonMoos mentioned, the 2017 version was an update but didn't disavow the original, founding document. Also agree with commentary of Special IP editor 2A10:8012:7:97C7:C80E:5AB0:F714:BE78. See here...

". . . if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism, in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem)."

via Hamas Charter of 1988, Article 7, emphasis mine.--FeralOink (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SNOW. No clear rationale for deletion. There is significant coverage among a multitude of sources, which are not difficult to find. Aintabli (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article would benefit from some copyediting, but the sources are present to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Chate[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. All sources on the page are regurgitated paid PR articles. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Teemu.cod (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and India. Teemu.cod (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - These sources appear to be paid, yet there is no conclusive evidence confirming them as such, as they lack disclaimers and are not featured in the "brandspot" section. The suspicion arises due to the absence of credited authors and the promotional nature of the articles, which deviate from typical news formats. Grabup (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO with flowery language in multiple sources. Non-notable corporate communicator person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every news story cited here reads like paid placement. Per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, Indian news sources require careful consideration due to weak controls on advertising and sponsored content, and almost all of the stories would trigger caution (for example, their lack of a bylined author). We should not use the available sources to validate notability under GNG or BIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:11, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton van Wyk[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:15, 23 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) 06:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Theron[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up in my searches are trivial mentions in match reports and lineup announcements. JTtheOG (talk) 06:09, 23 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) 06:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 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 procedural close‎ as a malformed nomination — the nominator does propose deleting Charter Vocational High School, but the talk page was somehow nominated instead. I'll (also procedurally) start a proper nomination imminently. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charter Vocational High School[edit]

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

This school seems to fail WP:NORG and really all of WP:N as well. Oddly enough in my research to check if reached notability I found https://web.archive.org/web/20090315093609/http://www.redorbit.com/news/education/217375/state_warns_2_albuquerque_charter_schools__boards_could_face/index.html which *might* be enough for Danny Moon to get his own page but I still feel like the school is ancillary in all this. Moritoriko (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Mexico. Moritoriko (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This Afd is malformed. The school's article, not its talk page is the target. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:15, 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 speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confrmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Book of Mormon places[edit]

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

Wp:gng - one or two of these list items are notable for their own article. There are no secondary sources about places in the book of mormon, leaving this as a partial list as derived by individual interpreters from the book of mormon. This should be deleted until reliable secondary sources write something meaningful here Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 28 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) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list, presumably with defined WP:LSC. Not all entries need to be notable, and the presence of Mormon archaeology and Historicity of the Book of Mormon as topics point to these being a sufficiently discussed set to merit inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, disagree with the nom, as a good number of the list items are notable enough for their own article - Zarahemla, Cumorah, Nahom among them. This list fulfills WP:LISTPURP, being informational and navigational in nature. Rollidan (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the same as List of biblical places or the many other such things at Category:Biblical places, or Category:Significant places in Mormonism, or in any of the subcategories in Category:Religious places. Dream Focus 04:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there is enough significant coverage of these subjects as a class (which is the key bit for lists, not whether each is individually notable) to merit a stand-alone list article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 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 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!} 06:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Kurtz[edit]

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

Played only 3 first grade games. Only sources provided are primary. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are databases or primary sources. Unless more references can be found current coverage isn't sufficient. Mn1548 (talk) 13:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algerian Cup semi-finals[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. 'Algerian Cup semi-finals' is not independently notable outside of the Algerian Cup and an unlikely search term. Merging may not be an option since the whole article is unreferenced. Details of the semi-finals themselves seem to be already covered in individual season articles, although for example 1964–65 Algerian Cup is completely unreferenced as well. C 679 04:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C 679 04:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. C 679 04:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really is not about notability, season pages are okay for the cup and that covers each semi, this is really not in the WP:SCOPE of how to construct the football content on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't need a separate articles for semi-finals, they can be covered in other existing articles like the parent article Algerian Cup or the season articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Separate articles for finals are understandable, but not for semi-finals. Svartner (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Algerian Cup as preferred WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inexplicable why this was made. I believe deletion should be used to set the right precedent. Geschichte (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and no input for four weeks Star Mississippi 02:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde[edit]

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

No secondary sourcing--and none that I can't find. Google News offers nothing but Facebook and Wikipedia (GNews, how you have fallen), but there's nothing else I can find, not in the regular search and not in books. It's unfortunate but not all scouting organizations are notable per WP:NCORP. Drmies (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Secondary sources exist (eg [21], [22], [23]), but both my Dutch and my Papiamento skills aren't good enough to include them. The little I understand suggests at least national notability. --jergen (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those prove that the organization exists--these are run of the mill newsy notes on a social club one would expect in a local publication/website. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Aruba is a really small nation with less than 200,000 inhabitants so "local publication" equals "nationwide publication". In my eyes both criteria of WP:NGO are met. Keep. --jergen (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, this meets all the requirements of the kind of local reporting we usually discredit: a totally mundane event written up in highly promotional language--and that's the best of the three sources. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 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!} 03:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:48, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Ireland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [24], [25], and [26] which may be helpful in determining notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:03, 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!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to hear a review of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Germany[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No evidence that these lists are encyclopedic, they've never been discussed as a group in RS. BrigadierG (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate list of trivia. Flibirigit (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rinus Bothma[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:22, 23 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) 04:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 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 redirect‎ to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Song-nam (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads where his name is listed and only known for. Govvy (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea per Govvy. Giant Snowman 17:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anwegmann (talk) 01:14, 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!} 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Jin-song[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing at all to go on here. Fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:14, 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!} 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alenga Charles[edit]

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

This comes across as WP:TOOSOON, as the player is young and only getting started. That said, this article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG as it stands right now. Several searches hardly brought up databases, much less anything of substance. Anwegmann (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tanzania. Kpg jhp jm 04:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are quite number of sources though primary and silent meet out criteria for media coverage. The article may be notable in the future. But for now, WP:NOTJUSTYET. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:53, 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!} 06:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ghanimi[edit]

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

I can't seem to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV on this player. This might be a WP:TOOSOON situation. In any case, it clearly fails WP:GNG. It was also draftified previously due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, but the original creator moved the article to mainspace without changing anything. Anwegmann (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Morocco. Kpg jhp jm 04:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV . Looking for sources only brings up stat pages like Transfermarkt and fbref . Kpg jhp jm 04:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 18:23, 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 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Purcell (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. Created by a single purpose editor. An orphan article. I don't see his achievements adding to notability. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Article claims he's a musician but I don't see evidence of that. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, South Korea, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, low significance and self promotional. 6 of 11 refereces are behind paywall for Newcastle Hearld, so most will not be able to view them. Oddly, they are archived, but still blocked by paywall. Teraplane (talk) 01:11, 18 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 02:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn’t appear to be notable. Long Dong Johnsonn (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional puff piece article with nothing much in terms of reliable sourcing outside the local paper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BEFORE search turns up few reliable sources apart from the local paper, which as other editors have noted, we cannot see without a subscription. Here's one not included, but I don't know whether Business News Australia is truly independent. Of existing sources, the two ProQuest links don't even show whether the articles refer to Purcell. All of the Herald links save this one appear to be Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. The Radio National and AdNews sources are likewise Q&A-style interviews and thus not RS. In sum, I don't think there is enough independent, secondary, reliable, significant coverage to pass GNG or BIO thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyosha (tank)[edit]

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

Questionable notability; lack of WP:RS to establish notability Amigao (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is video footage of the tank's actions Salfanto (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to T-80 models. The article is very poorly sourced, and "video footage" is not going to add reliability or credibility (it's easy to fabricate). In the doctrine of Russian military deception there is explicitly a measure named "Disinformation" (дезинформация). Under this measure, Russia actively seeks military advantage by tactics such as "untrue information to journalists". This accompanies concealment, imitation, simulation, and demonstrative manoeuvres (false trails). In other words, denial and deception come as standard in war or peace, and this is war. Do we believe that Putin congratulated some soldiers as heroes, etc? Yes. Do we believe that this was the work of one super-tankish-tank and its heroic crew? Not especially. Is this an encyclopedic article? No. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this article is to tell the history of the tank similarly to other articles about named tanks such as Eagle 7 or Bomb Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe that wikipedia is best when not biased to one side Salfanto (talk) 15:27, 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!} 03:12, 16 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!} 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with Tsar (tank) and several other articles by this user, there is minimal coverage by secondary sources, and as such it is padded out with WP:COATRACK content. Loafiewa (talk) 16:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Mr. Komori (talk) 18:43, 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 speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G4. ✗plicit 02:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvín A. Santana[edit]

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

No establishment of sustained notability using WP:RS Amigao (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Dominican Republic, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as with Marvín Sántana, Marvin A. Santana, and Marvin Amparo Santana... Hatman31 (talk) 15:17, 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 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David McGarry[edit]

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

An unsourced article, and there is nothing that I could find online that would allow David McGarry to meet notability requirements for musicians. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:32, 23 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, Video games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nomination. InDimensional (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Cotabato City bombing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All the sources provided are from time of event. Almost 11 years after, no lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Philippines. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of terrorist incidents in the Philippines#2013 per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 20:28, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar (tank)[edit]

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

Fails GNG, and appears to be a WP:COATRACK article. The War Zone is the only reference that even mentions this tank in any level of detail, and even then, in an article that only relies on Twitter and Telegram posts, so no RS has covered the subject of this article to any significant degree. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Loafiewa (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article simply needs more sources. Salfanto (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say this because the story of the tank is relatively recent Salfanto (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three questions, mostly directed to Salfanto but any editor may take them up:

Do the sources this article simply needs exist? If yes, then please present them here.
If the answer to the above question is no, then should we reasonably expect supporting reliable, independent sources demonstrating significant coverage to emerge in the near future? If yes, then this article was created WP:TOOSOON, but userification/draftification might be a viable alternative to deletion until such sources emerge.
If the answer to the above question is no, then is a redirect to T-72 operators and variants#Soviet Union and Russia a viable alternative to deletion?

Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking these questions.

So far I have found 3 sources which call the tank Tsar.

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/characteristics_of_trophy_russian_tsar_ew_for_t_72b3m_tank_given_by_ukrainian_expert-10115.html

https://interestingengineering.com/military/russia-anti-drone-tank

https://www.twz.com/news-features/ukraine-situation-report-russian-anti-drone-electronic-warfare-tank-captured

Again, tank you for asking me those questions (pun intended) Salfanto (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get a review of the sources brought to this discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete This seems to be a single tank with a bunch of field modifications which got taken a week ago. It's way too soon to think that there is going to be lasting interest in one tank, especially given that the modifications appear not to have worked. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There are just enough sources to justify the article. Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still don't see a consensus here. An interesting question is do we have other articles on other tanks? If so, then may be there is lasting interest in tanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: There is precedent for it, as some individual tanks may be considered notable. Compare Cobra King (tank) to this article, the former of which has many secondary sources discussing it with a sufficient level of depth, whereas for this article I feel we're scraping the barrel - the majority of the sources currently cited do not even mention the tank once. Loafiewa (talk) 00:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:GNG / WP:NEVENT, for lack of secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only relevant because it was in a war-related news cycle. Sources seem to be the normal sites that cover anything and everything that happens in Ukraine. An interesting event, but not a notable one. No evidence that this will see any further or substantial coverage. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:30, 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 no consensus‎. There is no consensus to delete the article. There is however, a strong current suggesting that it should be substantially altered in some manner, whether that is renamed, or broadened in scope. Those discussions can occur on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gold phosphide[edit]

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

No reliable evidence for existence, while not notable. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 20:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be a bit hasty.

A lack of evidence for existence is not evidence that something does not exist.

If you want to claim that AuP^[1] it isn't a real thing, you really need to cite contemporary work. The citations in the extant article are a wee bit long in the tooth. While the historic claim may have some interesting tidbits someone might dig up, it really is more the fact that there really is such as thing as gold phosphide (even if not AuP, but rather Au₂P₃^[2]^[3]^[4]). So the page has some definite need since they are spelled the same, even if they are different things.

Per one site "Gold Phosphide is a used in high power, high frequency applications and in laser diodes." ^[5]

I don't have access to the chemistry literature that this page would require. There isn't anything in PubMed, which includes a lot of primary chemistry literature as well. So it is pretty obscure, but that doesn't mean we cannot make room for it in our hearts, esp. if it plays some important role, e.g. in high power/high frequency laser diodes.

I would suggest making it a chemistry stub/draft and seeing anyone in the chemistry club wants to adopt it.

The PubChem CID 19094837 is not at all convincing. Just as a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, having an unambiguous identifier for something doesn't mean its real either. The two SIDs 56368501, 162106709 are probably for something real (even if they are the worst entries ever in the history of PubChem). 2601:447:CD7E:7CF0:0:0:0:56AE (talk) 06:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (This is User:DrKC MD editing logged out. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)}[reply]

American Elements is NOT a reliable source WP:VENDOR, due to their commercial interest. All the information we can find about it is in archaic literature, when concrete characterization such as X-ray diffraction or even Raman spectroscopy had been developed. I change my stance to rename to gold phosphides to broaden the scope to other actually characterized gold phosphides like Au₂P₃.^[6] Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/19094837
^ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022459616302675
^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/56368501
^ https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/substance/162106709
^ https://www.americanelements.com/gold-phosphide
^ R. Prins; M. E. Bussell (2012). "Metal Phosphides: Preparation, Characterization and Catalytic Reactivity". Catalysis Letters. 142 (12): 1413–1436. doi:10.1007/s10562-012-0929-7.

Keep Hypothetical compounds can be notable (Xenon octafluoride, Nitrogen pentafluoride, ...), and while the sourcing here is not of the first water, it seems easily sufficient to demonstrate minimum required coverage. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG see [27] [28] [29] -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this deletion discussion about something called Gold phosphide or about something with the formula AuP? Most of the hits for the former are for Au₂P₃, and people commenting here have interpreted things in different ways. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is supposed be something with the formula AuP. Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem, the sources cited all seem to be talking about different things. References 4 and 5 flatly contradict each other (one says gray solid, one says black with metallic appearance). Hypothetical compounds can be notable but we would have to make the article about a specific compound and be sure our sources reflect that. Since I'm not sure we can do that, I would support a rename to gold phosphides and rewriting of the article; failing that, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk)

Rename to gold phosphides per previous "keep" and "rename" arguments. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 16:08, 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 merge‎ to Camp Evangelista. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Evangelista shooting[edit]

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

All the sources provided are from time of event. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. Also WP:NOTNEWS applies. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Philippines. LibStar (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the location it occurred in its own section at Camp Evangelista. Its closest claim to notability is making the army reevaluate some of their practices. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camp Evangelista per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Camp Evangelista. More significant to that article. Borgenland (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty Hospital, Jordan[edit]

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

Previously deleted and salted at Specialty Hospital. The only sources here are press releases, the hospital's self-written description, and some kind of advertorial. I can't find much online for this case. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:TNT. It's big enough - over 210 beds - to be notable, but this barely referenced article is a mess. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women[edit]

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

Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the reviews already in the article, there's this, this, this, this and this which is enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg Take a look at what @Somebodyidkfkdt found. It looks promising, although sadly the last three seem to be empty? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TWL doesn't provide access to the last three unfortunately. There's also this, this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Delete~~ There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting WP:NFILM Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Did you look at the sources found above? And are the sources you found oline and linkable for others to review? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here[30]. The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, LA times is source #3. Oblivy (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to comment. There's little of substance except in that short period of 1994, but Cunard brought the sources. There's a common sense reading of GNG that could easily prevail here and I'd be fine with keeping the article. Oblivy (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bell, Miles (1994-08-19). "'Attack of 5'2'' Women'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 333, no. 30. pp. 12, 16. ProQuest 2362086371.
  The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."
2. Hiltbrand, David (1994-08-22). "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 ft.2 Women". People. Vol. 42, no. 8. p. 12. EBSCOhost 9408227615.
  The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"
3. Schwarzbaum, Lisa (1994-08-19). "Feminine High Jinks". Entertainment Weekly. No. 236. p. 46. EBSCOhost 9408227610.
  The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "
4. Willman, Chris (1994-08-20). "TV Reviews : '5 Ft. 2 Women' Doesn't Measure Up as Timely Satire". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."
5. Taylor, Jonathan (1994-08-19). "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."
6. Mendoza, Manuel (1994-08-21). "Tonya-Lorena sendup is a mean-spirited letdown". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."
7. Richmond, Ray (1994-08-19). "Television - HBO 'Enemy' Remake Wages Uphill Battle". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."
8. Laurence, Robert P. (1994-08-18). "Tawdry events turn into comedies - Harding, Bobbitt inspire outrageous minimovies". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and other editors earlier in the discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beam Invader[edit]

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

Lack of notability, I was unable to find any reliable sources indicating notability. DePRODded with the rationale that the article could be merged or redirected to something, I don't think there's any suitable redirect target as there are many Space Invaders clones and I don't think a non-notable one is suitable to mention on the article for Space Invaders. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space Invaders video games as preferred WP:ATD. Sorry, I included the wrong link in my deprod comment. ~Kvng (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having previously worked on getting both Space Invaders and List of Space Invaders video games to featured status, I can say that I did not come across this game in my research. To be fair, I wasn't searching for specific clones, but I would imagine that even a passing mention would have popped up if it was a little notable. As the list is intended only for official Space Invaders games, I don't think merging a clone into the list would be the right move. We'd still have to prove notability for inclusion because there were many clones and we can't make a unsourced catalog of clone games. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: From jp-wiki and elsewhere, company appears to have also been written "Technon/Teknon" & "Kogyu" or "テクノンコウギョウ" or "テクノン工業". Game also written "ビーム・インベーダー". It is mentioned at [31] & [32], but those are both recent. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could also fall under WP:NOTINHERITED, and it's not worthy of merging with Space Invaders either. When I worked on Space Harrier many years ago I learned about multiple clones of the game that were produced, and none of them stood on their own merits. The same applies in this instance. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 06:32, 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 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 01:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1950 Philippine Air Lines DC-3 disappearance[edit]

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

Per the page creator's own admission, there is little information about this event. I quote: "This would be peculiar due to the lack of info, with only airframe records mostly available. Currently I have not been able to find more info on the flight itself."

I have been unable to find any coverage at all in secondary sources; all sourcing in the article is from databases. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and Philippines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability issues. Although an unfortunate incident, the disappearance does not show any notability outside the event itself. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:22, 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) Desertarun (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency[edit]

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

Potentially un-notable, does not cite any sources (and has not since 2021), uses the wrong tone. Though tone is less of an issue, and non-notability and no sources are the big one thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep but burn to the ground and rewrite. This group does seem to have been discussed widely back around 2004-05: [33], [34], [35] (note that the CNet article was long before Red Ventures turned the site into an AI-generated garbage heap). The coverage may not quite be "significant" in all cases, but is there. Regardless, the article is absolutely awful and is inexcusable in its current form. Also, note that more recently the abbreviation WWiSE has been used for an unrelated software package: [36]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus and low participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have reworked it and added sources identified by WeirdNAnnoyed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead still isn't enough though. It just cuts straight to "Two industry "Pre-N" groups, TGnSync and the World-Wide Spectrum Efficiency (WWiSE), were formed". No identifying sentence. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 15:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheTechie, Do you have a suggested improvement? Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge it to the timeline in IEEE 802.11n-2009 @TheTechie? That seemed like a reasonable suggestion to me. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep But absolutely crummy stub. Needs a total rewrite. X (talk) 19:03, 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.