< April 23	April 25 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Neural Network Society[edit]

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

Originally a redirect to Neural Networks (journal). Article created in its original form by obvious COI editor Internationalneuralnetworksociety, which was reverted to a redirect. Very similar article then created by Hailneum, whose only other contribution is twice-failed AFC submission Draft:International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

Sources cited in the article are either:

primary: 1, 4, 5
passing mentions: all else

Other coverage of the organisation I was able to locate includes a few passing mentions in newspapers at the time of its founding; and a handful of passing mentions in an "oral history", which is mostly transcripts of interviews with people involved with the organisation.

In short, despite the existence of Stephen Grossberg and the journal, there does not seem sufficient inherent notability to meet either GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Technology. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the organisation having recieved signficant coverage, or at least signifcant enough to meet NORG, hence I would have to agree with the nominator. Golem08 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NORG, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SIGCOV. Other than the folks associated on its board, there is literally no evidence this organization is notable. I'm generally suspicious or organizations that have heavy-hitter boards but no visible presence of outcomes. Ordinarily, an organization does not inherit good notability from a notable board. Almost all the sources are primary and about folks associated with the organization, not about the organization itself or anything it's actually accomplished. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 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!} 23:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Mohammed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Again, Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or any applicable WP:SNG even after previous AfD. This is mostly based on WP:INHERENT and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Below is my source assessment;

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/09/13/the-plug-topboy-entertainment-formalise-merger-announce-mohammed-as-managing-partner	Promotional piece about the merger of The Plug and TopBoy Entertainment	Even though ThisDay is reliable per WP:NGRS, No byline used in the piece. Promotional nature of this piece also affects its reliability	~ Mostly about the merger of The Plug and TopBoy Entertainment	✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/10/16/oluwatobi-mohammed-the-young-entertainment-disruptor	Promotional piece that is not entirely independent	Ditto		✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/tobi-mohammed-a-journey-of-innovation-from-tech-to-entertainment/	This source appears to be a promotional profile piece on Tobi Mohammed.	Even though per WP:NGRS, Nigerian Tribune is reliable, the promotional nature of this article affects its reliability.		✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2022/11/from-dream-to-reality-the-inspiring-journey-of-topboy-entertainment/	This source seems to be a promotional piece about TopBoy Entertainment.	Source is marginally reliable per WP:NGRS, and the promotional nature of this article affects its reliability	The article provides significant coverage of the journey of TopBoy Entertainment	✘ No
https://www.turntablecharts.com/news/1256	~ This source is a promotional piece about Tobi Mohammed’s BlockParty series.	Even though the promo from here oozes, it does not affect this context.	This is about Tobi Mohammed’s BlockParty series and not Tobi Mohammed himself	✘ No
https://digimillennials.com/music/offstage-alhaji-popping/		No byline used in piece and reads promotional		✘ No
https://socialmediaweeklagos2020.sched.com/speaker/tobi27	This source is a profile of Tobi Mohammed from the Social Media Week Lagos 2020 event.	Promotional profile		✘ No
https://dailypost.ng/2023/06/09/tobi-mohammed-shares-invaluable-insights-on-soft-power/	Obvious sponsored content	Even though Daily Post is reliable, this is an obvious sponsored content		✘ No
https://notjustok.com/article/afrobeats-live-and-awards-power-players-2019/		No byline used	Not specifically about the subject	✘ No
https://www.turntablecharts.com/magazine/3rd/57	Ditto	~	Ditto	✘ No
https://www.turntablecharts.com/news/1184	Ditto	~	Ditto	✘ 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)).

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We had this about a year ago, here we are again, still not notable. The source chart is overly generous with a few sources, but I agree it's a !delete, this is PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, and Management. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like promotion per sources provided. No deep coverage by independent sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article has not been discussed in reliable secondary sources. Some of the sources (ThisDay) cited in the article are not independent of him and others (The Nation newspaper) are promotional to say the least. The awards he has won or been nominated for aren't notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only promotional content used as sources. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OUTCOMES. The nomination carefully lays out why this living person fails the significant coverage test. In any case, we almost always delete articles about music producers and managers, who are dime a dozen. Bearian (talk) 17:42, 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!} 23:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn of Valledupar[edit]

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

IDK why this is even an article? It doesn't even have a corresponding Spanish article. Maybe some of this could go to Wikisource? I don't know. No sign of notability in any way. Heck it's entry on Wikisource got deleted due to WP:COPYVIO concerns. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as a long-time resident of Colombia, I know that every departamento (state), every city, and even some towns have their own local "national anthem", which is what this is... for those outside of the country, it's just something Colombian mayors and governors feel very passionately about, that every place needs its own anthem. But the notability outside of the city or departamento is zero. The nominator is a Colombian himself, so he will know just how little notability these anthems have outside of annual parades. Richard3120 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beside being unable to verify much of the information, and a potential copyright violation, this is a local political song, which like local officials, we almost always delete. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 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. Consensus is that sourcing isn't sufficient. While I'd advocate for those who found sourcing to start over to build an article based in sourcing, I'm willing to provide the text as a draft if experienced editors think they can make something viable from this. Star Mississippi 02:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Carnivale[edit]

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

A PROD on this expired in 2009; it should have been deleted a long time ago. The article is a weird puff piece, likely by a COI editor, and is really just promotional. I find nothing on the internet that suggests this person is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe Drmies nailed it as "weird puff piece". Well ... it's different, but neither notable nor adequately sourced. There are only three inline sources for this individual, but you can't open the sources to verify what they are. Under "References", the majority of the Staten Island Advance listings are ... well ... not really sources. There's an online site for Statin Island, but not a news source, as much as it is select dates from about 30 years of the site. None of which seems to be relevant to this article. — Maile (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Architecture, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Architect Dave Carnivale wishing to comment on my page (which I've been proud to have for 15 years) having been nominated for possible deletion.Listing why I should remain sounds immodest and it is awkward, but there are several reasons.

Having been the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996 - the world's first architectural website it should be noted - featuring what at the time was the second book to be printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century - so it is no longer quite "cover-to-cover") is alone enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."

Secondly, another item is that, acting pro se I fought N.Y.S. all the way to the Supreme Court against special interest legislation affecting N.Y.S. architects and for the most part I succeeded.

Third, in an 8 year federal case, acting pro se, which went twice to the Delaware District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the U.S. Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and twice to the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) - all of which I won - I brought trademark law, specifically the 1946 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections, into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in domain names are insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. The Delaware District Court accepted evidence as having proven that, via my website, as of the 2007 date of the trial, 2,301,503 people had read all or part of my book (and it must be noted that the "unique viewers" the webhost reported counted everyone using a particular browser, such as Google or Yahoo etc., on any given day as being one "unique viewer" - meaning that 2.3 million figure was many times that in terms of individual people). That Delaware District case "Carnivale v. Staub Design, LLC, No. CIV. 08-cv-764-SLR" had its judgement entered 1/8/13; it was affirmed along with the statistical evidence mentioned, by the U.S.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [no. 13-1354 decided 12/3/13] and was again affirmed, including the statistical evidence, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its decision [Staub Design LLC. v. Carnivale, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2015, No. 2015-1306 decided August 6, 2015]. This shows three federal courts have considered it proven that millions had read all or part of my book as of 2007; undoubtedly millions more have done so in the subsequent years. Though I am not a "famous" architect, I suggest that few architects have had their writings read by, and drawings seen by, millions of people and suggest that alone is worth a Wikipedia entry.

In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for nearly a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am as much an architect as any of those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known. I do not know why I was moved from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author and have, pro se, changed trademark law with respect to the internet - and as you likely know, architects, while they should be artistic in nature, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians, part psychologists, part diplomats, part lawyers and part businessmen too - putting me in the severely limited 'artists' category is simply inaccurate. I see that has been since been corrected, for which I am grateful. I saw my page called a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect that I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might be kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is Architect Dave Carnivale; someone notified me that my Wikipedia page (which I've been proud to have for many years) has been suggested by someone to be deleted. I write to you because I've tried but cannot find out how to "join the discussion" and hope you will be kind enough to add my comments for me.Sounding immodest cannot be helped in listing why I should remain, forgive me. First, being the first architect in the world to have a website (affordablehouse.com) which made its debut March 15, 1996, and that at the time having been the second book anywhere on Earth printed cover-to-cover on the internet (the site was simplified and revised around 2022 after having been "on the air" so-to-speak for a quarter century is enough to warrant my page. Remember, in 1996 only 25k-30k websites were functioning at all; another 75k simply said "Under Construction."Secondly, in an 8 year federal case, pro se, which went to the del. District Court ('Carnivale v. Staub' Civ.No.08-764-SLR), the Federal Circuit (Appeal from the U.S.Patent and Trademark Office,Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in No. 92047553 'Staub v. Carnivale) and the Third Circuit (Civil Action 1:08-cv-00764-SLR) I brought trademark law, specifically the 1948 Lanham Act regarding trademark protections into the computer age. The case is now cited throughout the country and established that tiny alterations in domain names is insufficient to protect against claims of trademark infringement. In turning to my page I see a few inaccuracies which have crept in over the years; my projects now number more than 700 across the U.S. (not 500) and my book is now self published rather than published by BookSurge. Having practiced for neary a half century (not quite but getting close) and having won nearly every preservation award there is in N.Y.C. (I am a very traditional architect with a strong interest in preserving historic architecture) I am not unknown and am, as much an architect as those listed under 'American Architects' - and on Staten Island, a place of 500,000 people, I can say that I am fairly well known.I do not know why someone moved me from "People from Staten Island" to "Artists from Staten Island"- that is inaccurate in that I am an architect, a retired college professor, a preservationist and an author - and architects, while they should be artistic, are part historians, part engineers, part mathematicians and part businessmen too- putting me in the 'artists' category is simply less accurate, if not inaccurate. I see someone called my page a "Puff Piece" which does not reflect I was the first pioneer of a major profession on the internet, and, acting pro se for 8 years in federal court, I altered trademark law regarding the internet. For these reasons, I ask that you might ne kind enough to enter my comments into the discussion for me, since I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I may send this same message to another editor or two, but you are the first I've contacted....I thank you in advance, Sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:B1A5:F394:7F02:6A17 (talk) (transferred from User talk:Jevansen)

Delete. Weird puff piece indeed... First architect to have a website, second book on the Internet... Sjeez. --Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is David Carnivale. In 1992 I read in 'The New York Times' that "someday people would have computers in their homes." Random House publishers did not like the book I wrote "The Affordable House" and I didn't intend to spend years going from publisher to publisher the way authors often do. I never intended to profit from the book; I wanted to sell the stock plans to homes featured in the book, so I resolved to find out how to get it on the "World Wide Web"(internet was not yet a commonly used term) and then wait until people got computers. I found one of the first webhosts Bway.net and on March 15, 1996 my website made its debut. There were about 100,000 websites more or less back then, and three quarters of them said "Under Construction." In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety; in 1996 I posted my entire book cover-to-cover and it remained that way without changes until it was simplified and revised in 2022. You may see The Affordable House on the Wayback Machine from nearly its first days, and the Domain name has been registered with Network Solutions since 1998. The first two years, at the dawn of the internet, few - including me - even knew domain names could be 'registered' which is why the domain name was unprotected during the first two years (1996-98). So I disagree with your calling my page a "weird puff piece." I have been fortunate enough to have been a small part of the Internet's early history, and it is documented and provable. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:E8BA:D11:E26:2FB8 (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above: "In 1996 only the Bible had been posted in its entirety": if this is a claim that the Bible was at the time the only book to have been published on the web in its entirety, it's a surprising one. Project Gutenberg claims that A Christmas Carol, for example, was "released" in 1992. The release may have been via FTP, but Hart's file header (with idiosyncratic monospaced justification) encouraged people to distribute PG's files and it's hard to imagine that nobody was doing this on the WWW. If A Christmas Carol can be dismissed as slight, there's also what PG termed the complete works of William Shakespeare, which PG claims it first released on 1 January '94. (Of course, PG isn't a disinterested source for information about PG ... and so forth.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Found nothing obviously helpful at archive.org or ProQuest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; David Carnivale here. If your note means you were unable to locate "The Affordable House" from its early days on the Wayback Machine, here is the address for an archived page dated November 11, 1998 (about two years after the book appeared on the internet): http://web.archive.org/web/19981111185045/http://affordablehouse.com/ 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:89D7:3BB:FF22:368F (talk) 15:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant I was unable to find any WP:N-relevant sources about David Carnivale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:GNG and also WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is something [1] (Staten Island Advance), there may be more at [2]. It's local, but local is not nothing. Quote "The author of the "The Affordable House" has completed about 510 buildings, including houses in various traditional styles, bars and clubs - a specialty - and recently, a small airport in Tennessee." Also this [3] from Historic Districts Council. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies This [4] is not the kind of source I'd usually use for a BLP, but it should have some WP:N value, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if you don't mind my getting philosophical--it's the kind of thing that suggests there might be notability, and that there ought to be sources proving it, yes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per sources linked in previous comment. Some in-article ref-titles hints there may be more, like "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" Article needs to be re-written though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First, I would thank Mr Carnivale for his contributions here. While it may be determined that he doesn’t now meet our Notability criteria, he has had an article here for 15 years and his input on why he believes it should be retained is of value. Second, I’m not competent to judge the notability issue myself but, noting his work on historic structures, I’d be interested in User:Epicgenius’s view. Nobody has written more on NYC’s historic buildings, and I think he’d offer a valuable perspective. KJP1 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I am not going to !vote here myself, but for what it's worth, the coverage of Mr. Carnivale on silive.com seems to mostly be letters/comments written by him, or projects that he worked on, rather than coverage about the man himself. I did find this interview and, to a lesser extent, this human-interest piece about how he creates blueprints. When I searched for his name on Google, I saw directory listings, results about other people, a self-published book, and documents relating to a lawsuit from 2006, but sadly not much else. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KJPI, Thank you. David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though no mention has ever been made on my Wikipedia entry, and because I've never known anyone who was able to add it, there may be a lack of recognition just how much my 8.5 year federal case changed internet and trademark law. Below, you'll see I've located a few citations about it; the result was a change in how domain names are treated by federal courts and although not 'Precedential' it has been cited in federal cases in other Circuit Courts. Even the domain of Wikipedia itself now is now affected by the outcome of this case.

Regarding the Federal Circuit, I found this :

https://casetext.com › case › staub-design-llc-v-carnivale

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2642&context=thirdcircuit_2012

(2012 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit)

From the legal website law.justia is this link:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/11-1124/11-1124-2012-01-04.html

and also:

https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca3/11-1124

From leagle.com is this link:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120104129

From anylaw.com is this link:

https://www.anylaw.com/case/david-john-carnivale-v-staub-design-llc/third-circuit/01-04-2012/AoENPmYBTlTomsSBBMcm

.

So, while the design of 700 projects, a small airport and a small town over the course of a long career may mean an architect has left a mark on things but not have given rise to many citations on the internet, the legal case certainly did, it affects everyone with a domain name, and is alone worth the continuation of my 15 or 16 year old page, (as is the fact, accepted as proven by three federal courts from evidence they examined, that millions had read all or part of my book) thank you, sincerely yours, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:C5C3:31F6:21E4:FE1A (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFLINE sources can be used, but the people you encounter here are very likely to rely on the internet, since trying to access physical newspaper collections etc is harder. If it helps, what we are looking for, for the purpose of this discussion, are sources that are at the same time reliably published (WP:RS), independent of you and about you in some detail. Add to this "rules" like WP:BLPPRIMARY. The court case(s) in itself doesn't matter here, but an article about it/you in The New Yorker probably would. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if you're interested in editing WP on topics that interest you (apart from you), consider WP:REGISTER. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Gråbergs Gråa Sång helped explain a few details to me (thank you) but the heading said "offline" so I am replying here in hopes that it may add to the general discussion (I'm unsure if "offline" remarks can be seen by everyone discussing things here): I wonder if fame and 'notability' are being confused. Asked to name an architect, Europeans could likely name a dozen or two; ask an American and all they could name is Frank Lloyd Wright (perhaps a handful could name a second architect) - does that mean no American architect is notable or has ever done a notable thing? Except for Jonas Salk, no one who has ever developed life-saving drugs is famous, yet each is notable. In architecture there are no "Academy Awards" like Hollywood; we have a "Pritzker Prize" limited almost entirely to architects who design in the Bauhaus or International Style and there are preservation awards like the ones I received for architects with an interest in history, and the AIA gives out awards mainly to its members (and again that is limited almost exclusively to architects designing in just the International Style) but aside from a one-day mention in some press, these are soon remembered mainly by the recipients. The court cases matter in a way more visible; one relieved 15,000 New York State architects from a special-interest piece of legislation essentially forcing them to either join the private organization who wrote the bill, or suffer the consequence of having to obtain 36 college credits every 36 months for the rest of their lives to keep their license. It took me six years in court before, finally, both houses of the N.Y.S. legislature and the then-governor (Pataki) were forced to amend the law (over their previous vehement refusals to do so) thus relieving architects of that terrible choice. As for the other (Trademark) matter, it seems beyond question that protecting everyone's domain name against interlopers and bringing the 1946 trademark law into this century is notable. Wikipedia - as an encyclopedia - is more than just a 'top ten list' of what's been mentioned most often on Youtube or Salon or other popular websites - it is, I think, meant to be a compilation of knowledge and a resource for discovering things and uncovering facts not all of which have made the "Times;" I believe my being the first in the world in a major profession to be on the internet alone is enough to qualify, and that my website was the second book printed cover-to-cover on the web is more than notable enough to have my page continued. I would appreciate, since I do not know anyone who is able to do it, if one of those who've been participating in this discussion,would update my page; much has happened in the 15 or 16 years since the page was added.

Thank you, David Carnivale 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:810:2117:14D7:6EDA (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFLINE wasn't a heading, it was a hyperlink to the explanatory essay Wikipedia:Offline sources. My point was that "not have given rise to many citations on the internet" isn't necessarily the end of it. "Staten Island Advance. Thursday, April 16, 2009. Volume 124 Number 30,019 Page E6 "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" by Tevah Platt." may be the kind of source we are looking for, but I can't read it, so I have no idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång, for the "Preservation crusader to be honored citywide" story, does this link work for you? Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I missed it before. IMO, that counts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, David Carnivale, if this article is kept, you might want to consider providing an image for it. WP:A picture of you has guidance on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Gråbergs Gråa Sång, This is David Carnivale. Thank you but while I'm not computer illiterate, Wikipedia seems to be a universe all of its own - it took me a few days of flailing around before I discovered how to enter this discussion! My photograph (which, being very privacy conscious, I tried to keep off the internet but it was taken from the "About the Author" section of my book) is now all over the place (along with images labeled as me but that aren't me that Google searches turns up sometimes). I would have no clue as to how to add my picture here, and it would be inappropriate for me to try to alter my own page, no? Anyway, this has all been very exhausting and I've found and located all the source material I could, listed it here, listed the updated and consequential (trademark case) information that I think should be added to the page by someone authorized to do so and which, so far, no one has. I'm frankly surprised by the reliance of second and third hand materials such as web links and magazine articles by an encyclopedia and reluctance of editors debating a deletion to examine first hand sources of material establishing documentation of what is on the page or what I've added to the existing material through statements I've made here - sources such as websites operated by law schools and legal organizations summarizing the import of cases, official court websites etc. making available the various federal court opinions in their entirety, examining the Wayback Machine for evidence of the website's existence from the dawn of the internet, et cetera. I'm sure it is even possible to check with NetworkSolutions to see they've been registering my domain name since 1998.

I know little of the ways of Wikipedia, but, with respect, it seems to me when someone says "Let's delete this" they ought to closely examine the source material at its original location - otherwise deletions are more arbitrary than academic. I hope people here decide to leave well enough alone. As far as my picture goes, since my image is all over the web anyway, any editor here has my okay to add it to the page - I cannot. To ensure it is me and not a mislabeled picture that is occasionally found on the internet, the true image shows me in front of a reddish orange ancient building in a small Trastevere piazza in Rome and I'm wearing a white shirt with vertical blue stripes.The picture can also be found in the "About the author" section of my website "www.affordablehouse.com" (and no, I'm not plugging the website; don't misunderstand please - I'm nearing the end of a long career and keep the website more-or-less as a "calling card" and something that viewers might learn from or get inspired by in forming their own thoughts and opinions; at this stage of life the last thing I want are more clients...These days I just want to sit back and relax). But that is where you'll find the photograph. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. For the IP editors identifying themselves as "David Carnivale", if you wish to continue to participate in this discussion, please keep comments concise and related to sources and Wikipedia policies, subjects that can impact whether or not this article subject (you) is considered notable by Wikipedia standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Liz, This is David Carnivale. I realize my text was long but it was necessary to list as many citations as possible, and to illustrate the reasons the article should be kept.I expected this to end after seven days, which I read somewhere was the usual rule. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:EDE3:A409:B15B:7DA6 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage of this person that I can find, no book reviews either. The wall of text above being set aside, this is from the wild west days of Wikipedia, when anyone could create an article and it was pretty much let loose on the world. We have much more stringent standards now, and this just doesn't stand up. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Oaktree, This is David Carnivale. I'm sorry that is your impression, but it may have been more helpful had you addressed my being the first pioneer on the internet from a of a major profession, or had brought U.S. trademark law into the internet age, or had made the lives of 15,000 N.Y.S. architects easier, or that the book was read by millions etc. Editorial decisions should be made after research, not - pardon me for saying so - from people simply stating impressions. 72.227.222.26 (talk) 04:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David. Please take a look at this AfD's talk page; I've posted a few suggestions there that you might find helpful. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Carnivale. Yes, we have pages for discussion about pages where we discuss things. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. Dave Carnivale 72.227.222.26 (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, none of the things you mention are relevant to whether there should be a Wikipedia article. Your accomplishments are certainly laudable and interesting, but are irrelevant to the question of the existence of an article. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize what reliable sources have previously published. If there are no reliable sources covering a subject, there can be no Wikipedia article, regardless of how important or significant the subject is. Please read WP:N for our policy. Also note that, perhaps counterintuitively, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources, not primary ones, because interpretation of primary sources can be difficult and contentious. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY for more about this. A newspaper or magazine article about you (that does not rely on your own statements) would be an excellent source helping to demonstrate notability. A court website publishing a decision in a legal case would be a primary source and therefore be a weak indication of notability. CodeTalker (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker, in case you didn't see it, sources that have been mentioned in this afd are [5][6][7][8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I did see the sources although I was responding specifically to David's last post which doesn't mention sources, but seems to be arguing for notability based on his works. Regarding the sources, the first seems to be a typo(?) because it's just a link to this AFD discussion. The second is a reasonably good source, being about the subject, although it has a lot of quotes from the subject himself so its independence is questionable. The third is a four-sentence blurb and doesn't meet the "in-depth" criterion IMO. The fourth seems to be a discussion of a legal case in which David was involved and doesn't discuss the subject himself in any detail. So of the three, I'd say only the second contributes to notability. CodeTalker (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CodeTalker Thanks and corrected. My view: 2 is a bit of a mix, but has enough not-interview to be valid. 3 is somewhere above passing mention, partial GNG-point. 4 is a strange source, but does include some info on Carnivale/plaintiff and his doings, as well as the court cases he was involved in. I say it also adds to the case for GNG, but hard to say how much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there appears to be information about projects this person has been involved in to be found in the Staten Island Advance, there as yet to be anything beyond that source that is significantly about him. We generally consider multiple articles in a single source to be considered one notability source. I checked in the NY Times (and Staten Island news of import should be covered there) and found nothing. His book is self-published, so that does not support notability. Being party to a lawsuit itself does not support notability, only if the lawsuit gets significant press that talks about the person. Also, it looks like the Court decided [9] not to take up the case. Anyone can file, but it only matters if the court takes the case. Awards can count toward notability but local awards that get no notice outside of that jurisdiction do not themselves confer GNG. I must say that the claim that his book is "the second book to appear cover-to-cover on the internet" is simply wrong. I have a Project Gutenberg CD from that time with 10,000 books. Lamona (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, especially the cogent reasoning by Lamona, and that it's difficult to verify much of the information. If we cut out everything that we can't verify, what is left is a BLP violation. There are literally tens of thousands of writs of certiorari filed annually. The petitioner is not automatically notable, but the case he filed might be, so I would not oppose a move or redirect to the case name. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Carnivale, clearing up possible misconceptions: Host Colin Jost at the White House correspondents dinner a few nights ago spoke of the large circulation of the Staten Island Advance (the flagship publication of the entire Newhouse newspaper chain); it is the newspaper of record for Staten Island, whose 500,000 population makes it larger than Atlanta, Miami, Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Minneapolis. Some comments have made it sound like a minor supermarket circular. As far as the many articles in law journals about the change I brought about to federal trademark law and N.Y.S. law, I've discovered that after 15 years, internet articles tend to disappear. An encyclopedia conflating 'notoriety' and 'notability' and limiting inclusions to temporary, passing, gossamer mentions on the web is built on a shaky foundation, since such mentions or 'likes' or press notices all tend to disappear over time. Doctors and lawyers, engineers and the other professions do not have any way to discover who among them was first on the internet or what was the first website in their profession to appear; my page allows architects to discover just that. To make Wikipedia less complete, less a repository of knowledge and less able to disseminate knowledge by erasing that bit of early internet history is of no benefit. After all, they call it the "Groves of Academe," not the "plains." I hope everyone will see the page is better left as is, and I hope someone who is able to will update it- 15 years is a long time. 2603:7000:6E3B:C199:D070:D841:D5BA:186E (talk) 06:15, 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 keep‎. There is consensus that the article is based on a topic that has been discussed in reliable sources, and is thus not synth. There is also consensus that although the article may need cleanup (and a move to a new title might be appropriate), it is reliably sourced. The proposal to merge did not gain consensus, but this close is without prejudice to proposing a merge in the normal course. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally distributed and uncorrelated does not imply independent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research not suitable for an encyclopedia. A mathematical treatise with only a couple of references to basic facts the rest are heavily mathematized proofs and reasonings. Some people in the previous discussion argue that counterexamples are OK. Referenced counter-examples are OK. References demonstrate both correctness and notability of the content. The reader does not have to trust a wikipedian that the nontrivial math is correct. - Altenmann >talk 01:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not unsourced (though one body section is), and its contents are obviously not original research (except perhaps for that one section). --JBL (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I didnt say it is unsourced. I said only a couple of references. And its content is obviously a wall of heavy original mathematical research. "Cranking through the math one finds that..." - sure thing, professor. Hold my beer. - Altenmann >talk 20:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Wow. --JBL (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Checking the references already in the article shows that it is not a wall of heavy original mathematical research. The only part that wasn't already backed up by sources explicitly discussing the specific examples given was the "Examples with support almost everywhere in ${\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{2))$ " subsection. The "Cranking through the math" part was a tone problem, not a content problem, and that was easily fixed.
  Right now, the page is in deletion is not cleanup territory, I think. It might need further trimming and revising for proper encyclopedic tone, but the basic complaint of the nomination is unfounded. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion rationale is offered. The article is adequately sourced, and obviously not OR. AFD is not for cleanup of minor tone problems. --JBL (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SYNTH - does it ring the bell? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If I were you I would be more worried about WP:CIR. --JBL (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Synthesis means drawing new conclusions from things that sources have said. This article takes a conclusion that sources have already said and illustrates it with examples that sources have already used. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I see XOR'easter tries to salvage the article by throwing in references to some math. Well, it will probably not help. No matter how many footnotes you add, the article will still be original research, only from unreferenced OR it will turn into WP:SYNTH-type OR. (Of course, there is no doubt one can find a ref to each and every "2+2=4".) For this article, you have to provide references to sources that discuss these or similar examples. We have quite a few discussions in WP to what extent math in articles is OR (especially in the issues related to statistics; somehow many people think that population counting is a trivial math). And all discussions inevitably boil down to allowing only 2+2=4 or such. And funny thing, heated battles were around basic logic: "A or B" vs. "A and B" -- who would have believe it? "He didnt drink or smoke" - true or false? - Altenmann >talk 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: Heck, in this way I can print my 2-pages-long proof of the Fermat's Last Theorem, with every line footnoted, but still wrong. - Altenmann >talk 21:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. One horse is of one coat color <ref| Base of mathematical induction /ref>
2. Suppose k horses of one color <ref| Induction hypothesis /ref>
3. Let us prove that then k+1 horses are of one color <ref| Induction step /ref>
4. ... and so on. With each sentence footnoted, and you proved that all horses are the same color.- Altenmann >talk 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, the rationale advanced in the deletion nomination was factually inaccurate to begin with. The sources already in the article at the time were enough to demonstrate that the examples weren't made up out of whole cloth and that the topic is a topic math people care about. Further searching only bolsters this conclusion. One could still have legitimate concerns: is the article title clear and informative? Would this work better as a section in another article? Is the tone still too textbook-like rather than encyclopedic? Such concerns, though worth discussing, are not a matter for AfD. XOR'easter (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Independence (probability theory), I would suggest. The article very much positions itself as WP:SYNTH; starting off with This article demonstrates that [...] is something of a heavy giveaway. The premise here is "I will make an argument", not "I will document a topic". This can be carried within an existing article because we have more leeway there to shape the structure of how information is presented, but it is quite unsuitable for a separate article. Make it a subsection under (or after) Independence (probability theory)#Examples, and it should be okay. Sentences like "it is sometimes mistakenly thought that" still require sourcing/attribution. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of this article would be totally undue at Independence (probability theory), making it an inappropriate merge target. --JBL (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might make more sense to turn this article into a section in a new article called something like Misconceptions about the normal distribution. The three different Counterexamples books, the Melnick and Tenenbein paper, etc., provide other topics that would fit under that heading. XOR'easter (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would support that. It would certainly be a better title than the current one IMO. I guess that would count as a keep and edit from me thne. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poor phrasing does not WP:SYNTH make. It's not WP:SYNTH when the references (a) point out that students actually have this misconception and (b) provide examples illustrating why it is wrong. There is no conclusion here being advanced beyond what the literature already says. XOR'easter (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see very different, opposing views of this article. Let's see if one relisting can bring a clearer consensus or another possible Merge target emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it needs work and possibly a re-naming. It's not so bad to rate WP:TNT, and not WP:OR because it has been cited at least twice. I have taken and passed four statistics classes from the 100 level to graduate school, and I have taught very basic probability as part of AP Biology, but I am not an expert, so I defer to other where this should go. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Amarasinghe[edit]

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

Questionable for sustained notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is primary from his school (MIT) and some Army folks that set a world record for something unrelated. I don't see coverage that we'd use for PROF. Just a working educator, nothing notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably Speedy Keep. Strong publication record with an h-factor of 74 and four pubs with over 1000 cites. Two professional fellowships, so he qualifies under #C1 with the addition of #C3 to prove that peer recognition is not fake. The page does need better citing, but not delete.Ldm1954 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:PROF category 3 -- fellowship in a highly prestigeous honorary society. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I concur that he appears to pass WP:NPROF on multiple criteria. Article needs work, but deletion is not clean-up. Curbon7 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably going to be kept on the basis of what I consider technicalities. Association for Computing Machinery may be prestigious, and a fellowship in it may be relevant per NPROF #3, but we wouldn't be able to tell it from the article; there's a link, but it announces that there's 58 new fellows--so how special is it? H-factor is of course always problematic, as are publications and cites. Let's not forget that we're writing an encyclopedia here, and if there's nothing to write because everything is based on organizational websites announcing "fellowship" or databases showing a ranking, what are we doing? That's right, resume writing, where all the content is derives from faculty pages or from the subject's own publications. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ACM Fellow is an unambiguous pass of WP:PROF#C3 (potential COI: I am one too) and he has very strong citations, passing WP:PROF#C1. These are not technicalities. One doesn't become a full professor in a tech field at MIT without significant accomplishments, and these indicators show that he has them. The article needs cleanup but WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C3, as argued above. Deletion is not cleanup, and the first pass at cleaning up was very easy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. This person fails to meet the notability criteria. The citation rate of this person's work is not high enough. This person does not even have any significant achievement or affiliation. It is only right to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.158.179.229 (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is not acting in good-faith, they are just WP:HOUNDING David. Curbon7 (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:NPROF #1 and #3 (ACM fellow). The counter-arguments do not apply here, see NPROF. --hroest 07:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets NPROF for Fellow of the Association for Computing Machinery which is backed by a citation. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Meets two NPROF criteria; one is sufficient. If an article needs cleaning up, let's clean it up. Qflib (talk) 20:04, 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 redirect‎ to The Beezer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Beezer Book[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing found which suggests there is independent notability to the inclusion standards beyond The Beezer, not clear this content could be supported fully with references per WP:V even if it was to be merged. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beezer. These are common finds in secondhand bookshops in the UK. Have briefly searched for sources for WP:V but found nothing. Orange sticker (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It could be redirected to The Beezer per ATD. Desertarun (talk) 09:39, 24 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!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Beezer as no standalone sig coverage of the topic. X (talk) 16:30, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Brunson Marks[edit]

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

Regretfully I can't find any evidence she meets WP:GNG. There is no obituary of her death in 1969 or anything about her life except for the 1928 book that has her as president of a Burbank club (not notable enough for its own article), which was not a national position. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to find some references to establish notability but it came up blank. W C M_email 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Ebscohost search, nothing on Scholar, no indication that she ever did anything of any encyclopaedic interest or importance, just barely scrapes past WP:A7 as president of a women's club. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO in spades; no persistent coverage (main source from 1928; most recent source, 1970: a passing mention, inadequate for the paragraph it supposedly supports). More broadly fails GNG. No redirect to Woman's Club of Burbank is possible, and the umbrella page (unsurprisingly) mentions neither Burbank nor Marks. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I think there are some naming issues which may make searching for content difficult on this person. When I searched for "Jane Brunson Marks" in neswpapers.com nothing came up, but when I looked for just "Jane Marks" thousands of articles popped up and I ultimately was able to find her obituary in the Los Angeles Times from searching under that name. I think it likely that there will be more sources under "Jane Marks" but it will be difficult to sort out her between the many other women of that name. I'm loathe to delete an article with a biographical entry in a reference work on American women. The 1928 source is a strong indicator of notability on its own. If we had just one more source of this type it would be a clear keep. Given the name search challenge, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I found a reference speaking about her father in which his children with Effie Fox are "Jennie and Clair", so there may be sources where's she's referred to by the nickname Jennie. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on refs added since my last post, I believe the article passes WP:SIGCOV now and have struck the "weak" part of my earlier vote.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

Keep on the strength of the recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 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!} 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the "Women of the West" (an early who's-who) the other sources show (at best) that she existed. There's no plausible claim for notability. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more comments on the quality of additions since the article's nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Gbooks, Gnewspapers, or over at the Library of Congress newspaper archive. The book from 1928 is biographical, but I don't really see why she's notable for our purposes, active social life/helping others, but that's not quite enough for our notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sharing 4meter4's sense that inclusion in biographical reference works is a reasonable heuristic for encyclopedic relevance, I find the additional sourcing discovered since the deletion discussion was first opened persuasive. To the sentiment that Marks's position wasn't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, my impression from WP:GNG is that notability is determined not by the perceived prestige of a position but by coverage in sources. Coverage from biographers/journalists/historians/etc. is what confers notability, whether on a king or club woman. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Mentions are not indepth coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a mention or what is coverage in certain cases is probably a matter unlikely to achieve universal consensus; to at least explain why I see significant coverage, I'll mention that I find persuasive this essay's observation: An example is that a paragraph-long obituary of a scientist in a respected non-local national newspaper will be treated as more conducive of significant coverage than a paragraph-long obituary of an un-elected politician in a respected non-local national newspaper. A short obituary about an unelected politician in the Los Angeles Times doesn't convey as much significance as an obituary of the same length about a club woman like Jane Marks does, as such figures are less likely in general than politicians to get such obituaries at all. Also, WP:OHW guides my reading of the Women of the West entry; as a biographical dictionary, it has a compressed format that conveys more information in fewer words. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the already added/pointed out sources, many more exist. I found several in Newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia library after multiple revised searches, given that she was known or written about under different names, more sources are likely to exist. Not all sources need to be SIG/in-depth coverage. But along with a few in-depth sources present in the article already, these brief mentions indicate she was a known figure regardless of the significance of her work or positions. X (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article subject appears to have been a pillar in her community, but she is not notable. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The LA Times is a death announcement, not a full obit, and the rest of the sources that have been uncovered since the discussion began are either brief mentions or about the subject's family, not herself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 2 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 no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed fundamentalism[edit]

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

This is an ill-defined religious "movement". I doubt anyone identifies themselves as a Reformed fundamentalist. That's not necessarily fatal, but makes it harder to identify what the group is. You can google "Reformed fundamentalism" and find lots of hits, but many of them will be using it as a pejorative and foil for something else. I think it is possible that a phenomenon called "Reformed fundamentalism" exists as something that could be defined using reliable independent sources, but it would be difficult and this article does not even begin to attempt it. I think the current Christian fundamentalism page appears to do this quite well for that group, most of which would also not self-identify. But I think there are zero independent reliable sources in this article (even Packer is not independent), so I think the best course is WP:TNT. The article is original research sourced mostly to different groups and their beliefs, almost none of which identify themselves as "Reformed fundamentalists." The closest would be Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God, since Packer would identify as Reformed and wrote a book on fundamentalism. But even there Packer was writing a polemic to a broader audience than the Reformed world; he was not arguing for "Reformed fundamentalism" but Christian fundamentalism. Jfhutson (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term is in use in the scholarly literature. The page may well need work but I'm not sure it is bad enough for WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it really is a thing - particularly with the Bible Presbyterian Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster - but the article isn't very good. St Anselm (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there independent reliable sources linking these to a "Reformed fundamentalist" movement? -- JFHutson (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like this might close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 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 Yury Dud#vDud. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VDud[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is an unusual situation; the subject is a YouTube channel. The creator (Yury Dud) is wp:notable primarily via unrelated areas. The references here barely even mention VDud much less GNG coverage and there really isn't coverage derived from them. This is basically nothing but a self-written catalog of the YouTube channel. The article on the creator seems to have encyclopedic coverage of vDud, but is also confusing, seeming to be covering unrelated things as being vD. IMO the tiny bit of enclyclopedic content here should be merged into Yury Dud. Someday if someone could get GNG references and derive content from them that might viable. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yury_Dud#vDud, where the subject is already covered. Does not appear to be independently notable. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 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!} 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested in the comment above seems like the best choice, the Youtube channel doesn't seem to have much coverage we could use.Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 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 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Cityman 100[edit]

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

1 sentence not notable •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:19, 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!} 23:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violation of WP:ONESOURCE and fails WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Penang Transport Master Plan. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient for a standalone Star Mississippi 02:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayer Itam line[edit]

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

This is a proposed line, it has not been given any projected completion time and is not a final concept, though for some reason the article is written like it is a completed line. No sourcing beyond the regional government has been shown to give any coverage to this concept. It is clearly too soon to have an article on this proposed line given the lack of coverage in secondary sources. A basic BEFORE search turned up no further coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Malaysia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Penang Transport Master Plan. I would expect the regional government to be the best source, but it should have something beyond the master plan. Reywas92^Talk 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge, and the present tense in the article is certainly inappropriate. CMD (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold – I'm currently in the process of adding more content for the article. Hold it until the rewrite is complete. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded and amended information related to the article. Please review it. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The line is scheduled for opening by 2045. This is not something we should be giving a dedicated article when it won't open for more than 20 years, per WP:CRYSTAL. This should be a paragraph within Penang Transport Master Plan. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a project that was originally not part of the PTMP (until it was included in 2016), and was in development hell since the early-2000s. The dates of construction went from 2002, 2006, 2012 and was cancelled and revived repeatedly. It warrants an article of its own. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 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 merge‎ to Dance in Cambodia. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robam Neary Chea Chuor[edit]

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

The WP:PROD was removed, but there are still no sources (of the three links one leads to a Khmer-page language describing a particular song, second one is dead, third one is to the video). I have spend reasonable time trying to locate reliable sources in English and Khmer (second one using translation tools) and came up empty. Викидим (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't find anything on it even in Khmer, except this and a brief mention here . Lots of videos on YouTube, TikTok and Facebook which would indicate cultural notability but we do need sources... This is about Thai students singing a song of the same name. Perhaps try different spellings and variations in searching? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 04:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(numbers correspond to the order of sources in the previous reply)

More or less the same text as ours, indeed (with a different spelling,). Considering that the text on Internet is from May 2021 and ours is from 2007, I would not call it WP:COPYVIO, as it seems that the source has copied our text wholesale and thus cannot be considered a WP:RS.
Precisely "“Neary Chea Chour” is a Cambodian Classical dance piece featuring song lyrics about beautiful young women dancing in a row." (no "Robam", and, yes, I have already learned during search that "robam" means "dance"). No costumes, no "traditional", no neighboring countries - nothing that is in the text.
Videos on Youtube appear to not contain any information that can substantiate our text, much less even a small article
I can also point to few more sources in Khmer that described some songs with similar names that have pretty modern authors. It does not substantiate our text about dance, again.

All said, we are left with #2 that I did indeed miss. I will add it to the lists of Cambodian dances as a source. But surely an article cannot be written based on this source alone. Perhaps, the current text can be transferred to Dance in Cambodia and replaced by a redirect? Викидим (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think a merge to that would be best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not Redirect or Merge this article while this AFD is still open. The closure has yet to be determined. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dance in Cambodia. Google translate (របាំនារីជាជួរ) gives (Women's line dance). It seems to be a generic name for dances where several women in traditional costume dance in a line, not a specific dance. Perhaps something could be said about the genre, but my search only gets videos. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:16, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaan Zainab Mazari[edit]

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

She fails WP:GNG as there is no sources covering her in depth. The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance. samee converse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off topic discussion
@Rspeer: personal disagreements. --—Saqib (talk \| contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sheriff \| ☎ 911 \| 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer, an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections. Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --—Saqib (talk \| contribs) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:ANYBIO, award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News, a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sheriff \| ☎ 911 \| 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply] She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP, you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith. Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. —Saqib (talk \| contribs) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off topic discussion

@Rspeer: personal disagreements. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer, an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections. Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ANYBIO, award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News, a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP, you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith. Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG: BCC, TFT, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 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!} 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents-as it's not a case of coverage limited only to family relations) she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/WP:BASIC. X (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing the sources and content of this article, I believe it does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The available coverage is limited in depth, often focusing on her arrest for hate speech or her association with notable figures, rather than any significant achievements or unique contributions. The focus on these incidents and connections does not provide the sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage required to establish lasting notability. War Wounded (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth & WP:N doesn't demand individuals to have significant achievements or unique contributions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - it took me more than 2 hours to review the sourcing and verifying. After this prolong review before I !vote, I am not convinced in favour of this subject to be keeped. My statement stands with War Wounded. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:45, 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 merge‎ to Hurricane Hugo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA Flight 42[edit]

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

Barely intelligible. From what I've gathered, a Hurricane Hunters flight had an engine failure in flight during a mission, but was still able to return to base and land safely, see Hurricane hunters#Other incidents. This does not merit a separate article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Barbados, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Hurricane Hugo. The subsection of NOAA Flight 42 already explains in detail what happened. I don't really think a separate article is needed.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 20 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!} 23:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and delete, possibly WP:SALT. This is such a minor incident, with no loss of life, as to be a footnote. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 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!} 01:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balloon Brothers[edit]

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

Lack of notability - sole sources on the article are arcade database listings, KLOV is reliable per WP:VG/RS while Arcade History is unreliable. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources demonstrating notability. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Waxworker (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See vgmrips.net for the Japanese company East Technology. See YouTube for a 33-minute video of the arcade game.2603:6011:8241:6E00:1CBC:91A:F597:2B20 (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been PROD'd. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:23, 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!} 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The three refs used are of no use and outside of them all I could find were gameplay vids and forum stuff. No apparent sig cov in English. This shouldn't go without consensus. X (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: could not find evidence of significant coverage by multiple reliable sources. Contributor892z (talk) 17:58, 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 14:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Lacana[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

If kept, this may need TNT'ing as it does seem promotional in places. Long-time unreferenced BLP - lots of roles, working actor, but i couldn't find the sources to show he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion due to previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 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!} 22:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming that it were sourced, which the article is not very well, all the parts have been of the "teen" or "young" type, often guest appearances, not a substantial body of acting work. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 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 merge‎ to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

132 Aviation Support Squadron RLC[edit]

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

Insufficient sources have been provided to prove notability. This article is regarding a company-sized sub-unit. PercyPigUK (talk) 22:17, 24 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) 22:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle as 7 Aviation Support Battalion RLC, a battalion sized unit, which will be more notable. This includes 132 Squadron and a couple of other companies. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME the unit you are referring to? PercyPigUK (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Retain squadron article as redirect - better references may appear in time. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 7 Aviation Support Battalion REME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 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!} 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitutional Pentumvirate of Kaz[edit]

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

Non-notable topic, too many primary sources, + unreliable sources, few notable sources found online 2003 LN 6 22:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 22:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage I can find BrigadierG (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found no evidence that the subject meets WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I comment only to salute the amazing name of this real truly not fake country.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:20, 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!} 23:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy Breen[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as far as I can tell. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 21:57, 24 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) 21:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never really kicked on to bring extended coverage, so not really enough to pass WP:GNG here. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only 1 game for Waratahs. LibStar (talk) 03:13, 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!} 23:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Mamary[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG. Participation-based SNGs were deprecated in 2022 and BLPs require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, Lebanon, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though he his semi pro with international caps, references given don't appear to suggest his career is notable, thus finding refs is unlikely. Mn1548 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The zealous moves to purge sportspeople whilst other more civilized pursuits skate by with achievement based criteria. Nom fails to explain why deletion is necessary when alternatives exist such as a Redirect to the appropriate section of 2017 Rugby League World Cup squads. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing does not establish notability. Nothing found on Google either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to have a notable established career in first grade, regardless of international appearances. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 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 redirect‎ to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock#Preserved steam locomotives. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1298[edit]

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this locomotive in secondary sources. The source used for basically the entire article is a self-published website. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is not independently notable (I haven't looked for sources) it should be redirected to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock#Preserved steam locomotives. If verifiable, the information in the article could be used to expand the entry there to a full sentence as that seems DUE based on other entries. I don't see any benefit in deletion over this course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Per nom. 124.148.210.252 (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 22:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Thryduulf. News search found nothing and book search found self-published sources (and a few books with "Southern Pacific" on page 1298). – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 22:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Thryduulf would indeed be the best choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 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!} 23:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Wiles[edit]

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

8-year orphaned permastub on a "technology entrepreneur" with a single middling reference. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Technology, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find press releases saying she's running this panel or other. BrigadierG (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speaker at xyz event, is about all there is for coverage about this person. One line stub that we can delete. Vaguely PROMO, not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are just press releases, not enough to establish notability. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a single source violates both WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV, thus violates WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 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!} 23:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christo Joubert[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am having a hard time finding anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:28, 24 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) 20:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Okulov[edit]

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

Non-notable Russian physicist. The article was created by its subject (Okulov99 (talk · contribs)), contains no references or sources confirming the subject's notability (expect of the publication list of the subject). It is basically a promotional page. Ruslik_Zero 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation counts [10] too low to pass WP:PROF#C1. Membership in scientific societies, and working for the Russian academy of sciences, are not the sort of honorary memberships needed to pass WP:PROF#C3. The references appear to alternate between Okulov's own publications, and academic publications about background material that do not mention or cite Okulov; a rare exception is reference [2], which actually does cite a paper by Okulov, in passing. None of these references contribute to notability nor provide the material to properly source an encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per above. No indication that he is close to any of the notability criteria. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how any of his research was anything other than secondary. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPROF as yet. X (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As just stated, does not yet meet WP:NPROF. This page is a few years too early in this subject's career. WP:TOOSOON. Qflib (talk) 20:03, 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 keep‎. SNOW. And, to the IP editor, a "soft delete" is not possible if there is a single Keep vote and the discussion is unanimously Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Harmony (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as it lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet it. Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and United States of America. Agusmagni Agusmagni Agusmagni 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COMMONOUTCOMES; primetime series on American broadcast networks are generally kept, and even removing the week-to-week ratings sources it more than passes GNG. Nominator attempted to nominate Tom Swift and that was also kept. Nate • (chatter) 20:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, implausible that a network television series that ran for a full season across two calendar years would not have sufficient coverage to be found. BD2412 T 20:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found plenty of in depth coverage - eg https://variety.com/2019/tv/reviews/perfect-harmony-nbc-review-bradley-whitford-1203347611/ BrigadierG (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should soft delete this page 2800:810:498:E74:8500:1E10:DDC3:636E (talk) 22:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please state a proper rationale for deletion; 'soft deletion' would be a nomination with no votes for two weeks, which is not a possible result here. Nate • (chatter) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator does not understand how Wikipedia works, and runs a WP:Single-purpose account to fruitlessly nominate various TV series. Geschichte (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Quick WP:BEFORE finds multiple reliable sources discussing the show Shazback (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: these nominations are clearly nonsense. Toughpigs (talk) 23:04, 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!} 23:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Meyer[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 24 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) 20:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 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 merge‎ to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Sandstein 20:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 677 (Suffolk and Norfolk Yeomanry) Squadron AAC[edit]

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

In my opinion, the article is not notable. Only one reference is listed and it is not independent of the topic of the article. In the case of this article, the squadron is company-sized. PercyPigUK (talk) 19:29, 24 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) 19:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Aviation squadrons normally warrant their own articles. Predecessor units were larger: Norfolk Yeomanry and Suffolk Yeomanry have their own articles. And sources do not have to be independent of the topic of an article,. We don't need to write articles on football from sources on cricket. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary or tertiary sources determine notability (WP:PSTS) so if they are not included in the article, notability cannot be proven. This article is about an army squadron (company-sized) instead of an RAF squadron (battalion-sized). PercyPigUK (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for the secondary or tertiary sources that establish notability to actually be used in an article. Notability is proven by their existence, not their presence. WP:BEFORE: If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps, the information on the regiment article is virtually the same as what is in the article. Gavbadger (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 6 Regiment Army Air Corps. -- 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ashby[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first was written by the subject himself, and the second is a brief mention quoted from a press release. A BEFORE check revealed some quotes and namedrops but little else. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Law, and Politics. Let'srun (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no claim to notability. TJRC (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, and my own standards for lawyers. Yes he's been mentioned in two news articles, but that's not significant coverage. Many, perhaps thousands, of lawyers are involved in politics. He doesn't pass my standards for lawyers by a stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 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.

As a Soft Deletion, this article could be restored if this absent chessplayer ever pops back up on the competitive chess radar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Schulman (chess player)[edit]

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all databases, and a WP:BEFORE check only comes up with passing mentions such as [[11]]. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, Law, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes. Not voting one way or the other at this stage, just noting that he represented a large country (Canada) at chess, and most of his activity was in the 1960s where sources are not so easy to find on the internet. He played in 3 Canadian Championships. His Elo rating on the first FIDE list in 1970 was 2260, and it seems he didn't play any rated games after that. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several mentions of him in the Chess Life/ Chess Review archives at the USCF site (https://new.uschess.org/chess-life-digital-archives), usually in connection with either the Canadian championship or the annual Minnesota vs Manitoba match (he was one of the top players from Winnipeg). I haven't found any 1960s Canadian chess publications digitized on-line. Still, he satisfies two of the informal WP:NCHESS criteria, having played in 3 Canadian championships (1963, 1965, 1969) and represented Canada at the Olympiad. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards delete. I wanted to keep it, I really did, but in the end I couldn't justify it to myself. It's true that there are probably a lot of off-line sources from the 1960s, but he just doesn't really have enough achievements to get more than a few passing mentions in specialist chess publications. We haven't even confirmed a date of birth or death (chesstempo says he was born in 1934 but no better source found; a memorial tournament named after him was held in 2018). Playing in 3 Canadian championship (https://www.bcchesshistory.com/canchslate.html) and 1 Olympiad (https://www.olimpbase.org/players-ind/2/28e2amqe.html) doesn't really add up to notability since Canada has never been a major chess playing power, and his achievements in these events was a little underwhelming. His published FIDE rating of 2260, while not to be sneezed at, suggests that he was of below International Master strength. It appears he was strictly an amateur, a lawyer who only occasionally found the time to play competitively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCHESS doesn't mention playing in a national championship, it mentions winning a national championship. And it doesn't mention playing in the Olympiad, it mentions earning a ... medal at an Olympiad. So, I don't think we can rescue this article. That said, I enjoyed learning these little tidbits about a Canadian chess player whom I had not otherwise heard of. Bruce leverett (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere I found a DOB for him in the Chess Federation of Canada's 100th anniversary booklet by Daniel Yanofsky. I'll note here that he disappeared from the FIDE rating list on the January 2008 list, after being present in the October 2007 list, indicating a likely death in 2007. I've found references to a Winnipeg lawyer who is probably this person, but no obituary (he has a namesake from Maryland who also died in 2007, and another namesake who was P!nk's drummer). The lack of an online obituary does not bode well for notability. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:56, 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. Sandstein 20:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Maurice[edit]

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

Not a relevant subject for an article. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Current consensus states that crypto-centric sources don't count towards notability. Furthermore the creator (and only major contributor to this article) appears to have a conflict of interest since he has exclusively edited articles related to Chris Maurice or his company. Samoht27 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles published in Forbes, Business Insider and African newspapers. That makes him eligible according to Wikipedia. Jeersks (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) — Jeersks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:RS. As stated by Samoht27, crypto sources don't count, period. Many of the sources are just marketing or college-alumni puff pieces, and thus don't count. Forbes used to be good, but has become deprecated, and so that doesn't count either. Interviews in a newspaper don't count. In 2007, arguments that these constitute significant coverage could be made, but not in 2024. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 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 speedy delete‎. This could well be regarded as suitable for deletion under speedy deletion criterion G4 (re-creation of a page previously deleted as the outcome of a deletion discussion), but it unambiguously qualifies under criterion G11 (advertising or promotion). JBW (talk) 18:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NGO. Can't find any reliable or independent sources. Page was previously deleted as well. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 18:01, 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 keep‎. Sandstein 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Famille[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as it lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet it. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ivory Coast. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: While the article is insufficient currently, there is definitely notability, with several reliable sources in French: Le Monde, Le Point, analysis article on JSTOR, TV5Monde, rfi, La Libre Afrique, Jeune Afrique... and others which are perhaps less reliable / reputable Africine, IvoireBusiness, L'Infodrome, Pulse.ci, LeFaso, MediaCongo, AllAfrica. As someone with limited knowledge of African TV, I'm sure there are other, better sources, but this is really just from the first few pages of Google Search results. Shazback (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shazback above. Orange sticker (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Shazback's sources. The JSTOR result seems especially strong. Toughpigs (talk) 15:52, 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. SNOW Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian names of primate families[edit]

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

Violates WP:DICDEF. Occidental𓍝Phantasmagoria [T/C] 17:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Animal, Lists, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way out of scope. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and violation of WP:DICDEF. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with most of the exonym lists! —Tamfang (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ummm... This is pretty much WP:DICT. Don't think this is comparable to the exonym lists, though. Aintabli (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates everything, actually. Utterly non-encyclopedic. Geschichte (talk) 18:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in 2024, everybody knows we are not a directory. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick Nwabufo[edit]

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

WP:MILL journalist, non-notable. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Nigeria. Broc (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fredrick Nwabufo is Nigerian Journalist who have constantly conversed for good governance, improved security and commenting on national issues using journalism as well being a columnist on major National newspaper in Nigeria as a tool to disseminate his constant call for good governance and Patriotism. He is also currently the Senior Special Assistant to President Bola Tinubu on Public engagement where he is saddled with the responsibility of interfacing between the government and the Nigerian public.

I believe this article deserve a place on Wikipedia.

Thanks. AromeArome (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AromeArome How does this meet WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NPOL? Broc (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have had a reasonable amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. He's also a senior advisor to the Nigerian president, so not really fair to call him a "run of the mill" journalist. Article needs NPOV cleanup, though. AusLondonder (talk) 12:14, 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) 16:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with what AusLondoner said above. Does need to be better when it comes to NPOV. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:24, 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 Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance[edit]

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

My PROD tag was removed, so here we are. This is an older duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. As this award was divided into two categories from 2014 to 2023, the article is also partly a duplicate of Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Film, and Awards. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (and merge, if necessary) to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance seems quite uncontroversial (as the edit summary of the person who dpD the page stated, if I remember well). I had thought about it and deproDd it before reverting myself but on second second thoughts, redirects are cheap. I don't even think an Afd was necessary but thanks for taking the trouble.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then merge Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Male and Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance, Female into Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance. If we delete Black Reel Award for Best Breakthrough Performance we lose the 2003 through 2013 awards which were not divided by gender. ~Kvng (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2003 to 2013 awards are already covered in Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance. The article here is practically an older copy of that, hence the nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Black Reel Award for Outstanding Breakthrough Performance per WP:CHEAP and numerous incoming links and attribution purposes. Sorry I misunderstood the proposal and am casting a new !vote here. ~Kvng (talk) 22:36, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Haupt[edit]

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG. Technically meets the requirements at WP:NTENNIS through his wildcard in a local tournament but has no accomplishments as a tennis player that indicate notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it again Hildreth gazzard (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Not much WP:SIGCOV to be found at the moment. JTtheOG (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - WP:TOOSOON applies and currently fails WP:GNG--Wolbo (talk) 11:20, 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. Sandstein 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of soccer clubs in the Marshall Islands[edit]

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

The page has a single source, and none of these are legitimate clubs. They are only teams that happened to be registered with that name, and seemingly never operated at any capacity outside of amateur tournaments that took place years ago. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like a WP:HOAX. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say hoax- there are supporting sources at RSSSF, this is just not notable at all. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was mistaken. I thought that when you said "legitimate clubs" that you meant they didn't actually exist. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, these teams aren't hoaxes, but this sounds more equivalent to your local softball league sponsored by taverns and breweries in the United States more than a group of even semi-pro teams and they're there for fun, not glory. Nate • (chatter) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Or redirect to Football in the Marshall Islands. Football is completely incipient there, just like Niue, FS Micronesia or Palau. Svartner (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would consider this as village club teams that do not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, While these clubs do exist, they are too insignificant for coverage. Samoht27 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football in the Marshall Islands as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this list. Looks like a list of friendlys. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 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 delete‎. Sandstein 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Reth[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NACTOR or WP:NSPORT, all film roles appear to have been minor roles so far. He's been in teams of several performers at the openings of national sports events, but this doesn't bring him over the line for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Couldn't find any significant secondary coverage of him in English or Khmer, just passing mentions and social media. Declined three times at draft. Wikishovel (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Cambodia and Sportspeople. Wikishovel (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir Tiger Reth he is an actor, martial artist he play his role around more than 10 film the international film has 2 ( First they kill my father and jailbreak ) and now he is filming upcoming international film in cambodia( Phnom Penh Ground Zero ), You can check film list in tiger reth page wikipedia.

Thank You. Songha Mao (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Songha_Mao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of WP notability. He has no major acting roles that would meet WP:NACTOR, no martial arts accomplishments that would meet WP:MANOTE, and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Database entries, passing mentions, and being part of large performances at Cambodian athletic events (although not a competitor), fail to show significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 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 no consensus‎. There was no discussion of the sources provided during the discussions, the delete rationales are not paritcularly strong, and there were a couple of merge suggestions. A merge discussion can be handled on the talk page. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ClanLib[edit]

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

Nothing in the article suggests this meets WP:NSOFT/WP:GNG, and my BEFORE did not find anything useful (WP:SIGCOV-compliant). Can anyone save this? Otherwise we can consider a redirect target, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Piotrus:, are you asserting that what the article purports to be full chapters in two different game programming books doesn't amount to SIGCOV? I don't have access to or know these sources, so maybe you know something not obvious from the description here. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A412 I did not realize the second one is a book (dead link, all refs are malformatted and don't suggest they are books). The third one does link to a book page but I could not verify the contents (it is just publisher page). I also remain unconvinced that coverage in how-to/textbooks is sufficient to prove something is notable, unless those books are widely used. There is a lot of low quality spammy how-to/textbooks in the computer sciences field, particularly now in the AI days (although those works are likely old enough to at least not be AI creations). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Game Programming with Python, Lua, and Ruby" does indeed have a chapter on it, although I can't access the full text, unsure about the other one. There seems to be some decent sources in Google Books and some in Scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@StreetcarEnjoyer Is the publisher (Premier Press)? Their website suggests they do print-on-demand stuff, so self-publishing. See [12] or Our work helps you achieve your marketing goals.. Assuming this is the right company, this one does a lot of non-book gadget printing?? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, Amazon lists pub as Course Technology PTR, a subsiduary of Cengage Group. Course Technology PTR has Premier Press as an imprint. While I'm fairly confident who the publisher is, I can't say whether or not there's editorial control. @Piotrus I suspect you have an unrelated Premier Press website there, by the looks of it they're not in educational publishing. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some stuff I found if you'd like to look at it and decide upon its reliability. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment: List of games built with ClanLib: https://web.archive.org/web/20060626025824/http://www.clanlib.org/games.html - all of them seems to be hobby projects or even learning projects. I doubt that any of that on it's own would have Wikipedia article. Quickly looking at the list I do not see anything commercial or noteworthy. Pbm (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:09, 17 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would personally delete it. Looking for useful game engines and this page wasted my time. 24.113.50.192 (talk) 09:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the website perhaps from its entry on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_game_engines since that's how I ended up here. 24.113.50.192 (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTUSEFUL. The article "wasting your time" is irrelevant to the deletion discussion. What matters is if the books that discuss the subject are independent and contain WP:SIGCOV. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just some thoughts. I remember ClanLib. Back in the day, it was a 'big thing' for GNU/Linux users. At the time, Pingus was one of its showcase projects. Eventually, late 2007, Pingus switched to SDL. But early on, both gained popularity as SEUL(-supported) projects. Pingus still has its website there, and starting 19 July 2003 ClanLib was hosted there. I agree that ClanLib is not - or, no longer - notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, but perhaps it could get a single sentence at Video games and Linux § 1998–2002. Then the ClanLib article could redirect there. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 17:46, 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 delete‎. I'm WP:AGF here and following the assessment of the people who say they're subject matter specialists - not that there's anybody contradicting them or asking to keep the article. Sandstein 19:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotech metallurgy[edit]

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

This page is a reinvention under a different name of established metallurgy and materials science by a scientist at UCLA in 2018. Well before nanotechnology became a buzzword, metallurgists and material scientists were using structure at the nano size scale (mainly) deliberately in commercial materials, for instance steels and more recently superalloys. There is nothing in this article which is not already covered better elsewhere, both within Wikipedia and outside. Beyond this the article also has structural problems with much of it a list that is not expanded upon, and many parts are written as WP:CRYSTAL and/or WP:OR, although I think much (most?) of what is here is already established science. Neither Wikipedia nor scientists should be reinventing the wheel. (Yup, this page does annoy me!) Ldm1954 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: after I posted the AfD I realized that the editor who wrote the article is also the one who invented the name, so I have added a WP:COI to the list of issues with this page. For reference, he does not appear to have made any other contributions to Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the nominator here. A google search turned up a phenomenal number of hits for the term "Nanotech metallurgy" but they all seem to have very close links to MetaLi, a company owned by Xiaochun Li, whose name also bears an uncanny relationship to that of the creator of the article. I can't help but feel that the vast majority of the many sources available to support this article are actually direct or indirect-but-close products of Li, and the whole thing is extremely promotional, reeking of blowing one's own trumpet. This is not the place for autotrumpetery. We need evidence that a decent body of people other than Li are using exactly this term, or the article should be deleted. It isn't enough to find metallurgical publications that happen to mention nanotechnology. A glazier can use a screwdriver but screwdriver-driven-glazing doesn't automatically become a notable term. Elemimele (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment, looks a bit like SYNTH, but I'm not an expert in either nanotechnology or metallurgy so can't really assess it. Artem.G (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well I am a scientist and this is a mashup of nanotech and metallurgy that has no basis in common usage that I know of. This article has been through AFC and was created in good faith, however I'm not interested in a COI editor (a university professor and his company) trying to create a new scientific discipline. I checked refs, the COI editor, and googled - the nom has got this bang on. Desertarun (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your analysis, I am also a scientist and this is part of my area which is why I nominated it. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:24, 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. Discussion about splitting may continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of figure skaters[edit]

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

Grossly out-of-date and incomplete. Even if the list WERE complete AND up-to-date, there is no lead section, no cited sources, AND no explanation why this list is encyclopedically notable. In the current form, it will never meet the requirements of a quality list article on Wikipedia. I also don't really get the purpose of this article. For searching figure skaters, we have the category "figure skaters", which has the big advantage that newly-created biographies are automatically added there. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a valid navigational list. A clearly defined list of bluelinks selected by an obvious important characteristic of the subjects. Fram (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list that is in need of an update. However, AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Frank Anchor 15:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sure it needs work to update, but other sports have similar lists; i.e., Lists of tennis players, List of current AFC team rosters. Some are sourced, some aren't (i.e., List of female American football players). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is nonsense. It tries to justify deletion by pointing out ways that the article could be improved, which assumes that the article should be kept in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid navigational list created on Jul 4th, 2008. It would be more useful if all the names were in columns, with columns available to show more information about them. Dream Focus 02:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished adding sortable columns. Dream Focus 02:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment Someone can close this AFD as it has received no other delete votes and the article can be salvaged. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List is valid and may require updating and addition of other entries. --Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We don't need a complete list of every figure skater ever in one article. ON the topic of other articles, WP:OSE applies, but also Lists of tennis players is links to lots of different sub-articles with specific criteria, List of current AFC team rosters and List of female American football players has sufficiently few people that an encyclopedic article with text could be created. Listing thousands of figure skaters in one article would make a ridiculously long article, which isn't needed. Splitting by winning significant events e.g. world/continental championships would be sensible, but this article is and always will be a directory violation. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split Too large to justify a single list. PetScan counts 4825 articles within the Category:Figure skaters tree, which are almost all biographies. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on this article, and we can easily split it into 1) men’s singles, 2) women’s singles, 3) pairs, and 4) ice dance; with this article left as a disambiguating page. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:46, 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. Sandstein 19:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British School of Brasília[edit]

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

Article created by a clear WP:COI editor and fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSCHOOL. Redirect to British Schools foundation may be on the cards, but that article has notability concerns as well. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Doesn't have relevance or significant coverage. Svartner (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 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) 14:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stoyan Todorov[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability standards in WP:NSPORT. In addition, no non-trivial sources are provided, and I could not find any. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - found nothing better than Gong 1 and Gong 2 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 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. Sandstein 19:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slavcho Boychev[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORT, the existence of stat pages is not enough to prove notability. There are no other sources referenced, and nothing shows up in a search for news articles or other sourceable media. This article clearly doesn't meet the notability requirements. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems like he went on to have a political career. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 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 convert to disambiguation page‎. Sandstein 19:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Busch Field[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing substantial coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources needed for consideration against the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreeing for the reasons listed above, and I would raise the idea of redirecting to Busch Stadium Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page with an entry for William & Mary Tribe#Field hockey and an entry for the more notable Busch Stadium. Maintain article history at the DAB page. I would have voted "redirect" if not for the complication of the other stadium. Fails GNG due to no SIGCOV, but a reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 20:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support disambig per Frank Anchor. Giant Snowman 18:28, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qaum[edit]

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

This appears to be just an Arabic dictionary definition for Nation. Both sources used are just for the English word. At one stage this was a redirect to Nation, but this doesn't meet the usual expectation for cross-language redirects of specific relevance. Also of note is that the ar.wiki article ar:قوم is not about Nation, but a short stub about something else. Originally this article was a redirect to Qawm, but it is not mentioned there and I'm unsure if that is also a cross-language redirect. CMD (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CMD (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gosh this has been knocking about for twenty years! Just a dictionary definition of a word in another language. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 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 delete‎. Sandstein 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out with Jurriaan Kamp[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Environment, and Netherlands. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The network it's on, EarthX, doesn't have an article; it does have some distribution on major pay-TV systems in the US, but like other channels like AWE, it's basically a dumping ground for vanity project environmental documentaries even Tubi can't bother to deal with like this show. The WP:SPAness doesn't help here, either. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably going to end up agreeing with the Delete vote, although I'm still looking to see if there's more sources, but I feel like I have to point out that the fact that the network it's on (EarthX) doesn't have an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The network actually looks like it could easily have an article, as there's a lot of secondary sources reporting on it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Burroughs File[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years and claims on the page can be removed per WP:V. Not seeing notability outside of the author William S. Burroughs JMWt (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find coverage to argue that this meets WP:GNG. Pinging Ghosts of Europa, who might know of some sources. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked through a dozen academic books about Burroughs by Barry Miles, Jenny Skerl, Timothy Murphy, etc. I didn’t see any references to this collection beyond offhand references like “This letter is included in The Burroughs File.” Ghosts of Europa (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found some brief mentions in books referring to it but nothing SIG/of depth that warrants notability. X (talk) 16:41, 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) 14:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hakeem Nisar Ahmad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he never won a national or provincial election, merely running for an election does not make one notable. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage except for press releases about his part in running for elections to which he did not win. Fails WP:NPOL as not having won any seat-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: [19] Did not win his election so no WP:NPOL pass, and there does not appear to be WP:SIGCOV of him beyond routine campaigning releases. Curbon7 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 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. The author was a blocked sock (G5), and it's snowing down below anyway. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJ Dhaliwal[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG /WP:BIO.

The Forbes article is authored by a brand builder.
Nothing about the subject in the TOI article.
Source 3 is a blog.
nytimes article is an opinion piece.
[20] No significant coverage and a primary source.
Looks like the dealstreetasia article is about the app Dil Mil.
qz.com is about the app again.
techcrunch.com is about the app. WP:TECHCRUNCH
[21] has no mention of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and United States of America. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Internet. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are press releases, passing mentions, etc. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis by Jeraxmoira. To satisfy GNG articles need significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources which the subject of the article does not have. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:5450:3A3:46CC:17EC (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are just about his company, that too mostly about fundings. No independent sources about the subject. Lacks GNG 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 19:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Punjab, California, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The individual doesn't meet WP:GNG, and the sources provided aren't independent reliable secondary sources. Blogs, opinions, and primary sources can't establish notability. Grabup (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kind of close, but not close enough. I think the Dil Mil app could be notable, so this can be redirected there if an article for Dil Mil is made. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:01, 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. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Edunjobi[edit]

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

An article about an individual that doesn't meet out general notability guidelines for inclusion of musicians, actors and as the case may be. The sources doesn't seem to be significantly covered and per se, have more of PR and paid writing. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: withdrawn by nominator. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant awards (https://thenet.ng/kent-edunjobi-wins-first-amvca-for-anikulapo-soundtrack/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, winning a major award remember per WP:ANYBIO doesn't mean the person is notable. It means likely and the award hasn't be credited multiple times. My major concern here is the source as much of them are somewhat PR. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As pointed out by Mushy Yank, the subject won a major award. Moreover, he has produced the soundtrack to notable films such as Roti, Citation, A Naija Christmas, and Anikulapo. Although majority of the sources (1, 2, 3, 4) discussing the subject aren't independent of him, I feel like the two previous facts stated are enough for a weak keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: awards mean he passes notability outlined by WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 11:06, 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 Midnight's Children. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chutnification[edit]

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

I don't think this topic is notable enough to have it's own page but the information would be useful as a small section in Midnight's Children. Perhaps under style or reception. (I hope this is the right way to go about this) Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Moritoriko (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Midnight's Children per nom.

Neocorelight (Talk) 04:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Midnight's Children per nom. The vast majority (if not all) of Google Scholar hits for the term are about the novel or use it as the primary example. Jfire (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This is a Rushdie-ism and at most belongs in the Midnight's Children article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp El Tesoro[edit]

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

This camp seems to have received no significant coverage over its long history. A google brings up nothing but a couple of blogs and a press release, and a search of the newspapers.com archive only brings up advertisements in local newspapers, nothing that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable in particular for their program for bereaved children. See e.g. [22][23], [24], [25], ProQuest 390323292, ProQuest 235247096. One of the camp counselors received the President's Volunteer Service Award: [26]. Jfire (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added sources. This is a very well-known children's camp in Texas. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 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!} 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of DNS blacklists[edit]

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

Almost entirely self-sourced to the website of purported DNS blacklists. I was unable to find much sourcing specifically about comparison of different blacklists, so I believe WP:LISTN is not met even if the NOR issues (i.e. categorization of different blacklists into reputable and "suspect" lists based on primary sources) could be overcome. I don't see any content with sufficient sourcing to preserve. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. (t · c) buidhe 08:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While the blacklists may be notable, the construction of a comparison is basically WP:OR and probably falls foul of WP:NOTCATALOG; it'll also be utterly unmaintainable as lists change. This isn't Wikipedia's business. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above, and as violating WP:HOWTO. These types of lists almost always violate the rule against creating directories of how to compare one things to another. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 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 redirect‎ to Aranmanai 4. as an ATD. If you strongly object to this Redirection, feel free to take it to WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baakghost[edit]

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

The sources are all about Aranmanai 4, but make no mention of "Baakghost" or "Baak" (except in one source "Baak" is mentioned but it appears to be a character from Aranmanai 4." A hoax? Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A note that I have just nominated this for speedy deletion, even the IMDb doesn't exist for this "film". Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmanai 4, unless this version differs significantly. See my comment on TP (where I contested G3) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC) (Comment edited after I removed the CSD tag from the page)[reply]
Good catch, I also support redirect. Cleo Cooper (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmanai 4. The fact that the film was partially reshot (small percentage) with two different actors is entirely unsourced (till release). See List_of_multilingual_Indian_films#Partially_reshot_films. An attempt to recreate Baak (Telugu Film). @SenthilGugan: Mostly dubbed films do not get separate articles. DareshMohan (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Baakghost is incorrect; it is Baak. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is right, I forgot to mention that; but the content/subject being the said film, I find it is fairer, so as to be able to keep page history and credits, to rename after it's kept as redirect, than to plainly delete. That's what is generally done when the title of an Afded article appears to be incorrect. But thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks like just a copy-edited version of Aranmanai 4; Just an unnecessary content fork. Redirecting is pointless as not even the Google recognizes the name. See here 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All Google Search results are related to the Assamese folklore creature; and nothing about the film. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is totally unnecessary. Grabup (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but move the poster to the other article if possible. Looks cool. (141.132.22.10 (talk) 08:13, 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 merge‎ to List of Book of Mormon places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jershon[edit]

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

Wp:gng. This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet[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) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places. Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places. Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies, for which Jershon is the setting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:27, 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 speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)[edit]

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng, this is a definition of an in universe phrase using only in universe sources. No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination in Mormon culture Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 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) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The statement that No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination is not quite accurate. Looking through Google Scholar reveals the following:
- Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'", John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17–30), with discussion of how it was a euphemism for Freemasonry.
- Seth R. Payne, "Satan's Plan: The Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck and Modern Conspiracy", paper presented at a 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion held in Calgary, Canada and released on SSRN: mentions how the phrase was an anti-Masonic euphemism in the nineteenth century and became a term popular among Latter-day Saint conspiracy theorists in the twenty-first century.
- Patrick Q. Mason, "Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Conservatism", in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1845, eds. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80, about how LDS Church president and Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson used the phrase "secret combination" and applied it to his right-wing understanding of U. S. politics.
- Robert A. Goldberg, "From New Deal to New Right", in Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics, ed. Matthew L. Harris (University of Illinois Press, 2019), 68–96, also about Benson's use of the term "secret combination" in his politics.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we could reduce the entire article to "'secret combination' is an LDS-specific shibboleth that means 'alliance of evildoers'". As the sources cited above make clear, the term is not generally used or meaningful to anyone outside the LDS movement. But even within the movement it means different things at different times (e.g. the distinctive and personal interpretation by Ezra Taft Benson described in the Mason source above vs. the anti-Freemasonry version described in the Vogel source above). I can see how from an LDS perspective they could be collected based on their common origin into one article, but as a reader and contributor to a general encyclopedia I think that a standalone article probably doesn't help our readers as much as directing them to more useful, contextual information about the few disparate instances where the term's invocation (not just origin) is worth discussing.
So, is there any interest in replacing this unbalanced article with two or three entries in the parent secret combination DAB pointing interested readers to those existing articles, something like "a term for groups of evildoers in the Book of Ether", "a term historically used to distinguish between Mormonism and Freemasonry", "a term used by politician Ezra Taft Benson to describe political conspiracies", that sort of thing? Those articles should already be talking about "secret combinations", and if they aren't, well, that's interesting too, but it could be rectified in those articles using some of the sources provided above, I would think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Second, there are very many other sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its a borderline case but I think on review we are slightly over the GNG line here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 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!} 04:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Australia Magazine[edit]

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

No indication this meets WP:GNG. Sources provided are primary/promotional in nature. Most substantial source I have been able to locate is this brief fluff interview with the editor. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Golf, and Australia. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have performed some searches earlier with the same result. It is very strange that one of the few remaining golf magazines in a large country does not appear to generate much in terms of independent sources describing it (I even checked press in the National Library). --Викидим (talk) 00:44, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Insight[edit]

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

This has been unsourced and has notability issues for over a decade. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 04:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are some reviews out there in trade journals, but the independence of those is highly questionable. I cannot find any sources meeting criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage from secondary sources. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:13, 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 redirect‎ to A-ha. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratcliff (producer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not only re- produced the final masters of 8 of the tracks on a-ha’s 15 million selling first album Hunting High and Low but I also discovered them in 1983 and kept them, gave them £thousands and helped secure a record deal with Warners. I managed them under contract from 1983 to 1993 and without my financial and creative input they would have returned to Norway and never been heard of again! How dare you propose to delete this article. I have nearly completed my autobiography which inevitably contains the entire story of how I rescued them when they had no money left and put them in my recording studio for 2 years without any return for another 12 months. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:24, 28 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, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I.will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article. My autobiography is almost finished detailing my entire 10 years managing the band and the consequences for both a-ha and myself. 200 million record sales for a start! If you want a copy of my management contract with a-ha just ask. I lost my house and marriage while supporting the band before their success. Buy my autobiography next year and you can read every detail. Nobody, nobody knows the ‘a-ha’ history better than I do. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts right. I discovered the band when they came into my studio and spent 2 weeks recording. I liked what I heard and when they ran out of time and money I supported them for 2 years before Take on Me became a bestseller.I was contractually their Manager from 1983 to 1993. I re-produced 8 out of 10 tracks on their first and most popular album Hunting high and Low. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are two decent sources on the article, both telling the story of the recording of "Take On Me": "Talking Away: A-Ha On The Making Of Take On Me" on The Quietus, and "Classic Tracks: A-ha 'Take On Me'" on Sound on Sound. There may be some claim to notability. However, the article subject badgering us and making legal threats on this deletion discussion makes it difficult for me to vote keep. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
217.137.18.193, stop your threats. WP:NLT and WP:OUTING are policies here. You can vent, and you can argue for this article to be kept, but you can't harass people. Jfire (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read my opening statements from the top again. Johnratcliff (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was their manager from 1983 to 1993.I still get royalties!

Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your opening statement and I believe you when you say you've done all those things for the band and were important to their success. But saying things like "I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article", "My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise", "before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally", and "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity.

"Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you feel I was harassing you. ‘a-ha’ is a very sensitive subject for me. I gave up my home and lost my wife and young child on account of my involvement with a-ha. So it is a passionate and sensitive subject.

I reiterate, I am very sorry to have upset you.

John Johnratcliff (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha (with merging in of any useful information) pending publication of the autobiography referred to by the 217 IP (who appears to be the same person as Johnratcliff?). If it gets reviews in reliable sources, the article can then be reinstated based on those in addition to the few good sources currently present. Notability is borderline at present, since it can't be inherited from the band (and since our criterion for an independent page is notability, not admiration). The article is an under-referenced BLP and the last paragraph is stylistically inappropriate: "PS ... John". But it may be rewritable from sources a year from now. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, does not seem independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Yngvadottir. I removed a lot of recent COI additions that were entirely unsourced. Those should not be in a BLP. What remains are 4 sources that I will throw into a source analysis table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha	"In his own words". His own website. WP:SPS	? Reliable but self promotional		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me		I believe it is. Didn't actually check.	He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him	✘ No
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary			He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him	✘ No
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601			A primary source that says nothing about Ratcliffe in any case	✘ 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)).

However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a-ha: Not enough notability outside of a-ha to warrant an individual page. InDimensional (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha. I haven't been able to find sources to support WP:GNG beyond those mentioned here, and none of those support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha I must admit the table really sold it to me Sansbarry (talk) 01:30, 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!} 04:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Kyong-il[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:43, 24 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 A few databases online, but nothing else to suggest GNG, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here. Per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Noorullah (talk) 05:46, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Hak-sun[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:40, 24 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 Nothing on the Japanese article, the guy is Japanese not Korean, but other than that error, I don't see GNG here. Govvy (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a quick Google search and couldnt find anything to construct WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:47, 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 speedy keep‎. SK2/SK4, sock nom. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ikkjutt Jammu[edit]

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

This article has many wrong and disputed information like IkkJutt Jammu is different organisation in Jammu And ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal is different from it. Both organisation have officially different different social accounts and websites.pls delete it. Nishalover — Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close, sockpuppetry and no valid rationale for deletion, same as last AFD by another sock of this master: see SPI for details. Wikishovel (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Mr. Wikishovel, You+don't know anything about this organization. You are a stubborn person who doesn't know anything about this organization. You are prejudiced I am from Jammu Kashmir and know more about this organization than you. There is much more incorrect information in this article. It has been given. Nishalover (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The sources already in the article suffice to meet the GNG. If nom's claims about the article's inaccuracies are correct then fixing them is a matter of ordinary editing. Take it to the talk page, not to AfD. Central and Adams (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Problem is, this article is with wrong redirection like Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal,Ankur Sharma (politician). Nishalover (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT. Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many organizations in the local language of Jammu that have the same name. The problem with this article is that this article is about political Party whose name is IkkJutt Jammu.Apart from this is an Ekjut Jammu Party whose name has been changed to Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal.

These two are different .But this article has redirected Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal to which is wrong.The article has a website Added (Ekam4Sanatan) Accordingly this also the name of Ekjut Jammu Party has changed. Not of IkkJutt Jammu.Delete the article if not

~~So the wrong Redirection should be removed from the article so that the confusion will end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HinduJat (talk • contribs) 06:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 18:42, 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!} 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJPW-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have mostly rebroadcast other stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No separate notability from either of its parent stations, one of which was itself deleted as non-notable. Another remnant of how loose the inclusion "standards" were in this topic area in 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 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. WP:SNOW keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Hershel Layton[edit]

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

I tried to do WP:BEFORE, but it seems like this is the only sigcov [27] for this character. Meanwhile, others were just from game reviews with the same name, including the current sources used in the receptions section. Unfortunately, we need more to pass WP:GNG threshold. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Video games. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I almost immediately found this source talking about Layton's name being an unusual one for a protagonist, the use of his name as a title (which they identified as a relative rarity in modern games), and how he differs from a typical protagonist. This doesn't fulfill WP:THREE, but just from that quick search and the source provided, I strongly believe that any deeper search would come up with more. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the Eurogamer article Greenish Picke! linked and the Siliconera article that Cukie Gherkin found, Tablet has an article, "The Summer's Hottest Video Game Is About a Scholar Named Hershel", that foregrounds coverage of the character over the video game, particularly how being named "Hershel" makes the character a distinctly Jewish gentleman. "Three best sources" is an essay rather than a guideline or policy, but for what it's worth this demonstrates there are three solid sources for the character's notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe the Eurogamer, Siliconera, and Tablet sources puts us at WP:THREE. Could definite use a trim of the in-universe story appearances stuff, and an expansion of the reception with these sources, but overall that's clean up stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the sources presented demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. I believed the 3 sources above should be enough. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:21, 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!} 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSSS-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hard to imagine any significant coverage of a low-power station only known to have carried The Box and MTV2. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Hayatabad suicide bombing[edit]

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

The 2 sources provided are from time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/basically redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017, Pakistan has a lot of terrorism and is hard to search for sources for so if there are actually later sources in Urdu I would not oppose it being an article again someday (but I highly doubt that is the case). PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:04, 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!} 00:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge, searching for the events bring up other similar events before it. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:39, 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 redirect‎ to List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liuba Dragomir[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers as I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect Traumnovelle (talk) 02:42, 24 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) 22:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers due to subject's lack of WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:49, 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 Saint Louis University (Philippines)#Academics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

School of Computing and Information Sciences, Saint Louis University, Baguio[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. May need to be redirected to Saint Louis University (Philippines). Sanglahi86 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saint_Louis_University_(Philippines)#Academics per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:56, 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.