< April 24	April 26 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDHC-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 18 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 23:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only seeing press releases and TV guides as coverage, which isn't secondary. BrigadierG (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: At least in theory there is probably more potential for significant coverage here than the numerous all-national too-new LPTVs (this one does seem to have always had some local content), but in 2024 notability on Wikipedia is determined by, at minimum, the known existence of GNG-level sourcing, not merely the possibility of them. There might not be enough to justify anything more than an ((R to list entry)) as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agri-Fab[edit]

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

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV Gavrover (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 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 23:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on the article I expected more coverage to exist, but after checking news and books I'm Just Not Seeing It. Disappointing, as it is quite a well constructed article with nice prose and structure and pictures. BrigadierG (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find sigcov sufficient to meet WP:NCORP (and even reviews of its products are relatively thin -- though perhaps more likely in specialty publications). Could in theory be redirected to Sullivan,_Illinois#Economy to preserve cats, but it doesn't appear to be a significant enough company for that middle-ground to be needed. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG ,lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:29, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 03:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez_Safar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Diwon

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

Page does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability Considerusinga (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, California, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, In addition to what's stated in the nomination, the article was created as an advertisement. Samoht27 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO begone! But seriously, there's no coverage, just fluff and personal branding. BrigadierG (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aimetis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unclear this business is notable. The article seems to have been created as an advertisement for it. -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Canada. Beland (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: News articles I find are just PR items, what's used in the article now are pretty much of the same quality. Nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree, can only find press releases, and companies that put every damn listicle they're mentioned in in their Wikipedia article grind my gears. BrigadierG (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Blazar characters[edit]

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

It does not seem like the characters of this show are discussed in any reliable sources individually or as a group. This article uses primary sources exclusively, and I could not find any good sources in my BEFORE check. The one interwiki link also had little of use. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this needs to be created. Several character creations also show that all of those aren't reliable also and have been sourced primarily. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reject: This article wre under copyright law. Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UNO REVERSE. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 06:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to AA Rano Industries#Subsidiaries. Daniel (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RanoGaz Company - LPG[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are not about the company, rather about people complaining about the high price of gas. Fails WP:GNG . There remains a draft (Draft:RanoGaz Company - LPG) which has had several reviews but remain unapproved. This new version appears to be an attempt to avoid review. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AA_Rano_Industries#Subsidiaries. Lacks individual sigcov to meet WP:NCORP. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AA_Rano_Industries#Subsidiaries.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:01, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stages Cycling[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability, therefore fail WP:NCORP - the only ones i can find is reports of mass layoffs and reported bankruptcy. Sources in the body text are hardly what you call reliable third party sources. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Colorado, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwin Fulton[edit]

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

This article does not meet general notability guidelines and lacks sources. The one source the article does have is dubious as well. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Fiji. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, excessively lacking proper sources. Noorullah (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per mom, no WP:GNG. Poorly written article, but with no sources outside of the article as well. Contributor892z (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:OR. The only source is a directory listing. When we have a page with only one source, it is tantamount to original research. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Found no source to defend, not notable. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found a few thing on Google with passing mentions but nothing of substance. Fails WP:NBIO. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find any reliable sources Waqar💬 07:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, SIGCOV, OR, GNG, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 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 delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siviwe Mpondo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(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. Article was previously nominated in a WP:BUNDLE, which was closed as a procedural keep. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Amature player with minimal coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Fails to meet any of WP:SIGCOV, WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Contributor892z (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:57, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sipho Nofemele[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I searched using both Sipho and Siphosenkosi as his first name. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reasonable amount of coverage, but nothing suggesting a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 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. Closing as keep per consensus. Page move can discussed, if required, in article talk page, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Dubey (singer)[edit]

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

WP:REFBOMBed with sources of unclear reliability and significance. Almost identical to content previously deleted and salted at Nitin Dubey * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 11 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, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because many good reliable sources exists, such as 1, 2, 3. 4 and 5. BTW, there were several dead links, which I replaced with archive.org version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RolandSimon (talk • contribs) 09:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, previous page was deleted in 2012, so it cant be identical after 12 years. There is so much more news since then. He has played over 2500 shows in India. He is most popular representative of Chhattisgarhi folk singing style from chhattisgarh india, so meets Criteria #7 from WP:MUSICBIO. Also meets criteria #5, has released albums on 3 prominent Indian labels Ultra media & entertainment, Shemaroo Entertainment, and Saregama. RolandSimon (talk) 20:27, 14 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) 19:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I read the English language sources and they satisfy GNG. I've no reason to believe the non-English wouldn't check out making this person highly notable. The proper name page needs unsalting, the original salt took place 12 years ago and the world moves on. Desertarun (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and Move to Nitin Dubey (due to unnecessary disambiguator). - Meets GNG with a bunch of secondary sources that are independent, reliable, and provide SIGCOV. In relation previous article that was deleted in 2012, all of the sources have been published since then. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:48, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World in Your Home[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this programme was notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content and some citations to the article. I hope that those will help. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:36, 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) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per HEY. Sources have since been added and show a variety of coverage from when the show aired that establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Muradyan (ballet dancer)[edit]

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted at Ruben Muradyan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- appears well sourced/ meets WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Care to elaborate on how it's well sourced? Can you read Armenian? Or are you just saying this should be kept based on a cursory glance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:32, 25 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) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They've won awards before such as the Honored Artist of Armenia, which can constitute under WP:ANYBIO. Noorullah (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that Honored Artist of Armenia qualifies as a well-known and significant award or honor? If it truly were one then presumably its article would be more than a tiny stub. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is awarded by the president of Armenia. One nation bestowing significance through an award seems to fit the definition for WP:ANYBIO in my eyes. [1] It can also be something seen as of "historic" value now being a historic award, as it seems Armenia possibly does not give out these awards anymore? [2] @Pppery Noorullah (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several articles are already present on the page such as aysor.am.Shinadamina (talk) 05:40, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teunis Nieuwoudt[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found lots of trivial mentions, especially from 2015 to 2018, but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of mentions, but nothing really concrete for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrė Venskevičiūtė[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:55, 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lodahl[edit]

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

Essentially an unsourced biography of a living person for nearly twenty years. WorldCat is not useful for establishing notability, yet it is the only source for the entire article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Christianity. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Idaho, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary, independent coverage in either news outlets or the literature. Fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF through a dearth of third-party coverage and lack of overall recognition within their field (no honours, chair, or nat. biog entry, significant contribution, etc). ——Serial Number 54129 19:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see that his book Shekhinah/Spirit attracted some attention though I couldn't say how influential it eventually proved. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Being held in a library isn't notable, but could point towards notability. Unfortunately, I've tried and been unable to find "Shekhinah/spirit : divine presence in Jewish and Christian religion" book reviews. A zillion hits on where to buy the book, no proof of scholarly notice. I don't see AUTHOR being met. Gscholar and Jstor came up blank. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Noorullah (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, I have to stress that having a single source is tantamount to being original research, which everyone knows we just don't do. Call it a day here. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination Waqar💬 19:18, 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 delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Caribbean[edit]

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

Almost completely WP:UNSOURCED since creation, WP:OR. The only two sources do not contain the phrase "Southern Caribbean". On the Internet, it seems to be mainly used by cruise ship industry promotions. No WP:RS properly or consistently define the phrase, and apart from "South Caribbean" being a term in plate tectonics, nobody seems to be regarding this as a distinct region with its own separate identity/history/culture/music etc. other than the sum of its parts. Similar situation with Caribbean South America, just a lot more unsourced text. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ungh, of these unsourced articles that's too wordy to be hokum, but without sourcing, we can't prove anything. The phrase is used [3], [4], but I don't see it being anything other than a geographical descriptor. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's easy to pick a region and then subdivide it into subregions by compass direction, but that doesn't mean that subregion is a distinct or notable entity about which you can say things as a whole. Everything in every section can be either also be applied to countries elsewhere in the Caribbean (they drink rum!) or is just a jumble of facts about specific countries that don't apply to the subregion overall. I'm not even sure how Saint Lucia was picked to be in this but not Martinique, because everything here is made-up. Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. NLeeuw (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, critical lack of any good sources. Noorullah (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:59, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garcha Hotels[edit]

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

there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The existing sources mostly consist of interviews with its founder, routine coverage, or mere name drops, with many not even mentioning "Garcha Hotels." A Google News search yielded similar results, failing to establish notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 18:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. GSS ^💬 18:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Failed to find reliable source coverage. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV and the subject doesn’t seem to meet WP:GNG. Contributor892z (talk) 13:23, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris King (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG, most sources are just links to his music on streaming sites. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it still shows that everything is based on facts? So what is the problem Elektrinhooo (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He hadn't accomplished anything we'd consider for musical notability here; he got barely any press mentions when he was alive. A tragic death, yes, but that isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but I do think his appearances on the Trippie Redd songs are notable. Really good performances and I have never seen anyone say they weren't good. The Trippie Redd tapes he was on did chart on the billboard 200, so I'd say that this is partially because of him. Elektrinhooo (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability when alive it seems, I don't see charted singles, album reviews or much of anything. Even the many articles on his death are about him being a friend of Justin Bieber. Friend of a famous person doesn't quite get us notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability before his death. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've seen this a lot, as a previously non-notable musician (typically a murdered rapper) suddenly gets media coverage for his death, and media outlets use the occasion to talk about his music for the first time ever while quoting more famous people that he knew. This rapper achieved nothing musically that qualifies for notability at WP:NMUSICIAN. All media coverage is about his recent death, but that does not qualify for notability under WP:NVICTIM either. May he R.I.P. but he doesn't qualify for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are too thin and it seems notability has not been established. InDimensional (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The endless list of Spotify links and having another artist's feature considered worthy of it's own section is sloppy and I don't see notability beyond their tragic end Sansbarry (talk) 01:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's odd that nobody has brought up moving the page to Death of Chris King but even then it would probably not follow WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 19:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think even the death is that notable, it's all about "the friend of Justin Bieber" that passed away; we remove the friend link, I still don't think notability has been met. "Person who was a rapper and friend with a famous person" passed away... Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing notability before death Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:11, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anass Maksi (Business executive)[edit]

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

Not a notable enough person for an article. Fails WP:NBIO - barely any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Kk.urban (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Morocco, and Colorado. Kk.urban (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero media coverage. Being a hard-working individual isn't helping notability and withdrawing from an election isn't notable either. This is PROMO. Heck, it's sourced to the Better Business Bureau, a patents database and government websites, none of which help notability. Could have almost speedied this. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced entirely by non-WP:RS sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and title blacklist Sock repost: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anass Maksi (businessman), etc. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer this not get speedied, just so we have a deletion discussion to point to for G4. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others as well as a clear sock of Zimidar, same UPE. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Couldn't find any news coverage anywhere It appears like that most of the sources are given from our own website. Shabh (talk) 3:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom and above lacks in depth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Married (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: 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, there are plenty of reliable references in the article. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator needs to stop nominating American TV series articles at this point; well passes GNG with the sources existing minus weekly ratings, and a Judy Greer/Jenny Slate FX prestige project isn't going to be deleted. Consider this a final warning to understand our deletion processes better, @Agusmagni:; this is like Angel Hernandez thinking they were calling strikes, when the pitcher threw wild pitches so bafflingly high that they hit play-by-play announcers in the press box three times over. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 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]
Keep: Clearly notable series, the nominator is raising some WP:CIR concerns. Toughpigs (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Funny show with dedicated fanbase deserves a Wikipedia page. Waqar💬 07:24, 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 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. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Kannada Anubandha Awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are mainly mentions, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. I can find references that verify its existence but that it about it. CNMall41 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Entertainment, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 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 List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bellamy (Upstairs, Downstairs)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2016, nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV via WP:BEFORE. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if not kept, the more appropriate merge target seems to be List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters as he is not mentioned at List of Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series) characters, and the text of the article supports this. On a brief look, it actually appears there's not much more at this article than the character list. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy. Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As pointed above. Doesn't meet GNG and lacks any sig cov whatsoever. X (talk) 23:48, 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Galler-Rabinowitz[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. As for the rest, I don’t know whether she meets the criteria for notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Beauty pageants, Medicine, Women and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, very weak. The sports hall of fame induction seems to be the best, the Buffalo newspaper article is fine. Coming in fourth, then third at the national championships for ice dancing is barely at notability, but we have enough confirmation of these. The medical career is routine, but just barely notable for the athletic portion. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This helps too [5]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree, passes BASIC. Another source to add is Forward. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hopefully, some of these sources can find their way into the article soon. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teng Chun-hsun[edit]

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

Not meet WP:NBAD; Fails GNG Stvbastian (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Taiwan. Stvbastian (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Kung, Bakery; Deng, Wei 鄧崴 (2023-08-03). "本屆第二面金牌！世大運中華隊值得你關注的羽球球員：「左手重砲」林俊易、「新一代最強女雙」李佳馨、鄧淳薰！" [Second gold medal this year! The badminton players of the Chinese team in the Universiade who deserve your attention: "The left-handed heavy gun" Lin Junyi, "the strongest women's doubles of the new generation" Li Jiaxin and Deng Chunxun!]. GQ (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  The article notes: "本屆第二面金牌！世大運中華隊值得你關注的羽球球員：「左手重砲」林俊易、「新一代最強女雙」李佳馨、鄧淳薰！在擁有豐富經驗的李佳馨、鄧淳薰，在世大運混團最後一點穩定的發揮下，中華隊在本屆世大運混合團體賽，收下了本屆的第二面金牌。"
  From Google Translate: "Second gold medal this year! The badminton players of the Chinese team in the Universiade who deserve your attention: "The left-handed heavy gun" Lin Junyi, "the strongest women's doubles of the new generation" Li Jiaxin and Deng Chunxun! Thanks to the stable performance of Li Jiaxin and Deng Chunxun, who have rich experience in the World Universiade mixed team, the Chinese team won its second gold medal in the World Universiade mixed team competition."
  The article notes: "身高173公分的鄧淳薰，無疑是最後一個關鍵賽事的亮點；有14年球齡的她，由於有身材上的優勢，爆發力十足，因此後場扣壓的能力相當突出：本場比賽前，這對組合世界排名第20，相較於對手李汶妹、劉玄炫世界排名第14是稍微低了一點，但2020年成軍的「馨薰配」從過去效力中租就已經默契滿分，甚至還被封為「新一代最強女雙」，不負眾望，最終也讓中國隊看到了「最強」的威力。"
  From Google Translate: "Deng Chunxun, who is 173 centimeters tall, is undoubtedly the highlight of the last key event; with 14 years of playing experience, she has a physical advantage and is full of explosive power, so her ability to press in the backcourt is quite outstanding: Before this game, this pair Ranked 20th in the world, which is a little lower than opponents Li Wenmei and Liu Xuanxuan, ranked 14th in the world. However, the "Xin–Xun pair" that joined together in 2020 has already had a tacit understanding of perfect scores since playing in the past and was even named "The strongest women's doubles of the new generation" lived up to expectations and finally allowed the Chinese team to see the "strongest" power."
2. Jian, Mingshan 簡名杉 (2023-08-10). "台灣女羽「忙內」鄧淳薰世大運學經驗　盼亞運叩關4強" [Taiwanese women’s badminton maknae Deng Chunxun learns from the Summer World University Games experience and hopes to reach the top four of the Asian Games]. ETtoday [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  The article notes: "剛代表中華隊參與成都世大運，並拿下羽球混雙項目銀牌以及混合團體項目金牌的小將鄧淳薰，也將披上國家隊戰袍出戰接下來的杭州亞運，身為中華羽球女團中年紀最小的「忙內」，第一次出戰亞運坦言，「能打到哪裡就是哪裡。」同時也期盼能夠叩關女單項目的8強甚至4強。"
  From Google Translate: "Deng Chunxun, the young player who just represented the Chinese team in the 2021 Summer World University Games and won the silver medal in the badminton mixed doubles event and the gold medal in the mixed team event, will also put on the national team jersey and compete in the next Asian Games in Hangzhou. As a middle-aged member of the Chinese badminton women's team The youngest "maknae", who is participating in the Asian Games for the first time, said frankly, "I can play wherever I can." At the same time, she also hopes to reach the top 8 or even the top 4 in the women's singles event."
3. Ye, Shihong 葉士弘 (2016-04-27). "全中運》李鄧配羽球摘金預約東京奧運" ["National Games" Li Deng won gold medal in badminton and booked for Tokyo Olympics]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  The article notes: "就讀台北市立大同高中國中部三年級的李子晴與鄧淳薰，從小就是羽球女雙搭檔，展現出超齡的實力與擊球威力，她們先在今年1月舉行的第1次全國排名賽勇奪乙組第一與甲組門票，轉戰台東全中運更是勢如破竹，1局未失登上后座。 ... 兩人球路與個性互補，李子晴個性大方，鄧淳薰則較為內向，在球場上也是李子晴較為主動，鄧淳薰則以補攻為主，成為絕佳拍檔，她們本次不斷打下國中女雙金牌，也率隊打下女團金牌，一舉進帳兩金。"
  From Google Translate: "Li Ziqing and Deng Chunxun, who are in the third grade of Taipei Municipal Datong High School, have been a badminton women's doubles partner since childhood. They showed their strength and hitting power beyond their years. They first won the Group B in the first national ranking tournament held in January this year. First and Group A tickets, the move to the Taitung All-China Games was even more impressive, without losing a single game. ... The two players have complementary skills and personalities. Li Ziqing has a generous personality, while Deng Chunxun is more introverted. Li Ziqing is more proactive on the court, while Deng Chunxun focuses on making up the offense. They have become an excellent partner. They have continuously won gold medals in the junior high school women's doubles this time. , also led the team to win the women's team gold medal, winning two gold medals in one fell swoop."
4. Zhan, Jianquan 詹健全 (2021-10-21). "全運》疫情後15連勝連三冠　李佳馨／鄧淳薰女雙打遍台灣無敵手" [National Games》After the pandemic, Li Jiaxin/Deng Chunxun women’s doubles won 15 consecutive victories and won three consecutive championships in Taiwan.] (in Chinese). LTSports. Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  The article notes: "新冠疫情後要留給有準備好的人，很明顯，來自中租的「馨薰配」李佳馨／鄧淳薰組合準備的非常充足，「馨薰配」今在全運羽球女雙金牌戰的北市內戰中再以直落二(21：8、21：15)打敗吳玓蓉／程郁捷奪金，疫情後已連15勝包辦全排、全大運和全運三冠，儼然已經是台灣新一代最強女雙。... 「馨薰配」中的鄧淳薰今年更是首度參加全運就順利摘金而回"
  From Google Translate: "After the COVID-19 pandemic, it must be left to those who are prepared. It is obvious that the "Xin–Xun pair" Li Jiaxin/Deng Chunxun combination from Chailease is very well prepared. The "Xin–Xun pair" is currently playing badminton in the National Games In the women's doubles gold medal match in Beishi Civil War, they defeated Wu Zhenrong/Cheng Yujie in straight games (21:8, 21:15) to win the gold medal. After the pandemic, they have won 15 consecutive victories to win the three championships of the National Parade, Universiade and National Games. It seems that they have already won the gold medal. They are the strongest women's doubles team of Taiwan's new generation. ... Deng Chunxun in the "Xin–Xun Pair" participated in the National Games for the first time this year and successfully won the gold medal."
5. "羽球／全國國中盃　北市大同奪3冠1亞4季第一贏家" [Badminton/National Junior High Cup Beishi Datong won 3 championships, 1 Asia and 4 seasons as the first winner]. ETtoday [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  The article notes: "從小學就搭檔至今的北市大同女雙鄧淳薰／李子晴，19日準決賽先以22：20、21：11擊敗自家姐妹孫妏沛／陳奕璇，再於決賽以21：12、21：16取勝南市永康梁家微／鄭育沛，贏得她們國中生涯首座全國大賽后冠。身為大會第1種子的鄧李配，不僅首輪輪空，且場場快速解決對手，堪稱這次女雙最強拍檔 ... 今年全中運屈居第四的鄧李配，賽後鄧淳薰哭的像是淚人兒般，本屆國中盃終於一嚐摘冠心願"
  From Google Translate: "Beishi Datong Women's Doubles Deng Chunxun/Li Ziqing, who have been partners since elementary school, first defeated their sisters Sun Yupei/Chen Yixuan in the semi-finals on the 19th 22:20, 21:11, and then defeated Nanshi Yongkang in the final 21:12, 21:16 Liang Jiawei/Zheng Yupei won the first national championship in their junior high school career. ... As the No. 1 seed in the conference, Deng and Li Pei not only received a bye in the first round, but also quickly defeated their opponents in every game. They can be called the strongest partner in women's doubles this time. ... Deng and Li Pei, who finished fourth in the National Games this year, cried like tears after the game. This year's Junior High School Cup finally got a chance to win the championship."
6. Huang, Xiuren 黃秀仁 (2017-08-12). "紐西蘭懷卡托羽賽》台灣潛優小將獲2冠3亞7季　表現最耀眼隊伍" [Waikato Badminton Championships in New Zealand》Taiwan's potential youngster won 2 crowns and 3 Asian Games, the most dazzling team in 7 seasons] (in Chinese). LTSports. Archived from the original on 2024-04-19. Retrieved 2024-04-19.
  The article notes: "北市大同高2女雙鄧淳薰／李子晴與高雄中學3年級鄭育沛／梁家溦在冠軍戰演出「自家姊妹」對決戲碼，最終鄧李配技高一籌，花費35分鐘以21：16、21：19拿下比賽，也獲兩人搭配以來在國際成人賽第一冠。"
  From Google Translate: "The second-year girls' doubles team of Datong High School in Peking City, Deng Chunxun/Li Ziqing, and Kaohsiung Middle School third-graders Zheng Yupei/Liang Jiaman performed a "sister" showdown in the championship match. In the end, Deng and Li were superior in supporting skills and won in 35 minutes with 21:16, 21:19. In the competition, they also won the first international adult championship since the two teamed up."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Teng Chun-hsun (traditional Chinese: 鄧淳薰; simplified Chinese: 邓淳薰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Cunard arriving with a steel chair to source the hell out of this article. BrigadierG (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above The argument above is quite well laid out. With all those good Chinese-language sources, Teng Chun-hsun doesn't fail GNG at all. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources presented are good. Hopefully someone can incorporate a couple into the article. StreetcarEnjoyer (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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of the most popular given names of Kazakh women of Kazakhstan[edit]

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

A dump of a 1000 names. Strongly fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Names are even in Cyrillic, so not readable for most readers of an encyclopedia that uses a Latin alphabet. I am also nominating:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Kazakhstan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the names are redlinks and these topics do not show any signs of notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would be a pain to continually update as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sign of notability. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DIR. In 2024, everyone knows: we are not a directory like this list. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 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 merge‎ to Tire-pressure monitoring system. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 138[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not the Federal Register. There are a large number of articles like this one which should also be evaluated for notability, I encountered this article through New Page Patrol. No secondary coverage present. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Mangoe (talk) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Tire-pressure monitoring system, which is what the safety standard regulates. There is some secondary coverage in Google Books, the Internet Archive, Google News and Google Scholar. There is at least one full article on the standard: [6]. We do not have a policy or guideline that says we are "not the Federal Register". Also called FMVSS 138. James500 (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am persuaded that this topic satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 08:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retain This is one of many article on an automotive safety standard. Like many stub articles, it could benefit from being expanded but I see no reason to delete or merge.Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you try a policy based argument, please? How does this meet WP:GNG? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tire-pressure monitoring system. There are an insane amount of regulations about there, many of which recevive some coverage, but very few need articles, especially when we have a great target article like this – Tire-pressure_monitoring_system#Firestone_recall_and_legal_mandates already has this content and can acommodate more so a separate page is not necessary! Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as an WP:ATD, given the case made by Reywas92.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Welborn[edit]

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

He doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Working actors, but not the significance of roles needed. Also currently an unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion are ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With roles as "guy at cafe" and "angry cop" as examples, he's very much not notable. Character actors usually aren't notable unless you have extensive biographical articles about them that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradfield Abbey[edit]

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

Fails notability, the one reliable source Is the one referenced on the page which makes it clear the charter refering to the abbey having been built is probably fraudulent. I can find no other historical source that references any abbey existing in Bradfield. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and England. Tim Landy (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Bradfield, Berkshire. I can't find anything on Heritage Gateway on this. There is a mention here but otherwise I can't fine anything significant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested to Bradfield, Berkshire, or delete outright per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no such abbey in the uk, and on that basis a redirect is inappropriate. Desertarun (talk) 20:33, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Malatin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N

Delete Fails WP:NBIO as another run-of-the-mill startup founder. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hospital parking executives are not notable, even what's used for sourcing now is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There were attempts to speedy delete this article in 2012 when it was created. It has not improved. I don't know why it was retained at that time but it is clearly promotional and does not meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV. There are just no sources that show this person is notable. A CEO is never notable per se - there are tens of thousands of similarly situated persons. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 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 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Degree College Phool Nagar[edit]

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

no notability, created by blocked paid editor. Testeraccount100 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like an advert and fails WP:ORG. Would reconsider if there are Urdu sources but there is no Urdu version of this article. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pujan Malvankar[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized ("Malvankar's unwavering commitment and strategic vision have positioned him as a catalyst for positive transformation in Goa's political landscape") WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly referenced as passing WP:NPOL. The main notability claim here is that he's the leader of the youth chapter of a state-level political party, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it could get him into Wikipedia if he were shown to pass WP:GNG, but does not automatically entitle him to a guaranteed inclusion freebie just because he exists.
But the referencing here is not getting him over GNG: it's referenced to one primary source, one glancing namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article that doesn't even mention his name at all, and appears to be here just to tangentially verify that the political party he works for exists, none of which is support for his standalone notability as an individual at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This individual doesn't meet the general notability guidelines; there's no news coverage about him, only passing mentions. Additionally, he doesn't meet WP:NPOL since he hasn't been elected as an MLA or MP yet. Grabup (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with the typical flowery wording we see, boils down to "nice guy runs for functionary position in the youth wing of a political party". Very not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned that the leader is of a 'state level poltical party'.This is just to inform you,its not a state party Aam Aadmi party is a national paty (AAP). a Link for your reference https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/story/aap-national-party-status-how-to-get-the-tag-2358592-2023-04-11

If needed i shall add more references. Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/aap-requests-cm-to-postpone-exams/articleshow/88819441.cms Unknowncrypto (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it matters, he's a functionary regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's the leader of the youth division (not the entire party) of a state-level chapter of a national party, not of the youth division of the entire national party. So I said nothing incorrect at all. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for clarifying, the leader of the youth division of a state-level chapter is not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject doesn't meet the WP:GNG; no decent independent news coverage and doesn't meet WP:NPOL too. Rustypenguin (talk) 17:29, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waxi's[edit]

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

Notability. Single ref makes no mention of this being a chain. TheLongTone (talk) 14:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNews search confirms that it is not a chain yet as this is the first ever branch. The only hits were news blurbs that it opened last 24 April 2024. --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. LadyofShalott 13:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With only 1 citation it doesn't pass notability guidelines.Yolandagonzales (talk) 20:31, 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 No. 659 Squadron RAF. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 659 Squadron AAC[edit]

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

The article has almost no information not included in either No. 659 Squadron RAF or 1 Regiment Army Air Corps. PercyPigUK (talk) 14:37, 25 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) 14:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into AAC article. Gavbadger (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with No. 659 Squadron, this seems to be one lineage. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into No. 659 Squadron RAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No. 659 Squadron RAF into this article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Dera Ismail Khan bombing[edit]

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

The 4 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. Also oppose merging with any terrorism article as it is not clear this event was terrorism. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source explicitly describes it as terrorism, and all others generally refer to it along those lines, referencing attacks and militancy and whatnot. Hence, merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete: per nom; NOTNEWS. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 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 Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Chaman suicide bombing[edit]

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

The 9 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 18 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) 09:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per usual disclaimers (later sources may exist in other languages, it's Pakistan), merge (cut down version) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per PARAKANYAA. Queen of ♡ | speak 03:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 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. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Dahl[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The main notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient coverage and analysis about her work to get her over WP:GNG -- but the only reference cited here is a primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
As I don't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Swedish media coverage than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Sweden. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think that ISBN to my books can meet the case, but pl let me know if you need additional information:

1 Seven Russian poets in Stockholm: ISBN 91-7906-004-8

2 Collection of poems "Summer time and Winter Clocks": ISBN 9189424069 (1999), ISBN 91-89424360 (2000)

3 Novel "Always returning to you", ISBN 978-91-7327-089-2

My translations of Swedish poets are published in four literary magazines. Shall I provide publication years/numbers?

My membership in Swedish Writers' Union can be confirmed by the Union. My Ph D about Boris Pasternak is from 1978, it can be confirmed by Göteborg University, the only number I can find is 9 9901417317. If you search my name (Dahl, Elena) in Libris, the database of all books in Swedish libraries, you will find a complete list of my published work.

Sincerely

Elena Dahl 178.174.247.84 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A writer's notability is not established by citing the article to the publication details of her own work as proof that it exists — a writer's notability is established by third party coverage about her and her books in media, as proof that they've been externally validated as culturally significant by somebody other than the writer's own employers. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched in 2 major Swedish newspapers (Aftonbladet and Dagens Nyheter) for her name and got nothing. I don't speak Swedish so I can't go further than that, but we would need 3rd party sources to keep this. (I think WP is being confused with LinkedIn, which is designed for self-promotion.) Lamona (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:38, 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. The next few months will likely provide more clarity regarding lasting notability as a standalone event. Owen× ☎ 21:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 Chernihiv missile strike[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Ecrusized (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~the killing of at least 16 civillians and the targeting of civillian infrastructure is absolutely news Monochromemelo1 (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)~~ User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn’t. Russia has been deliberately attacking civilian targets for a significant amount of time now. This strike is no different than the thousands of other attacks. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"is absolutely news" @Monochromemelo1: Please read policies before commenting on your interpretation of their shortcuts. WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which states that "Wikipedia is not a newspaper". Quote, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is news, but this isn't a newspaper. We need some sort of coverage to build an encyclopedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Russia, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's war. There are airstrikes. What else is there to say? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~almost every israeli air strike is documented during the Israel–Hamas war why cant the same be done for air strikes by russia? Monochromemelo1 (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)~~ User not extended confirmed per WP:RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. Ecrusized (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's NOT a war according to Russia. They call it a "special operation". Ukraine calls it act of terror during war. Both deserve an article. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or delete collectively. A missile strike against a residential building murdering 17 civilians and injuring over 60 others should sound like a highly notable event worth an article in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, because the fascist Russian state has been targeting civilians indiscriminately in a disgusting effort to break their will to resist, these have indeed become routine. But this article is no less notable than many that have already had an article for some time, such as 2024 Donetsk attack, 2024 Pokrovsk missile strike or August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike, just to name a few. We should either keep them all or delete them all. We need a centralized discussion to decide what do we do with these articles and establish a threshold of notability. By deleting one article every few months while three other similar articles have been written we do not go anywhere. Super Ψ Dro 22:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a number of articles about similar russian airstrikes against civilians in Ukraine, with more or less casualties: April 2023 Sloviansk airstrike, 2023 Uman missile strike, Kharkiv dormitories missile strike and many more. --Lystopad (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we can decide whether this fails WP:NEVENT after the war is over. But for now, I see no reason why it should be deleted; every Russian warcrime is notable enough for an article. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although there's missile strikes being launched into Ukraine consistently, this one missile strike produced a significant casualty count compared to the others. Due to that, I see it as a notable event that is significant enough to have it's own article. Nintenga (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similarly as the August 2023 Chernihiv missile strike--Noel baran (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Start larger discussion The only thing that makes this stand out from the dozens of other articles about similar airstrikes is that this comes at a time when Ukraine is running criticially low on air defense missiles, and it probably has a higher than average number of casualties. As Super Dro said, it would be good to start a more centralized discussion about these articles rather than just make a decision for one of them every few months. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per Nintenga and others. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We also have articles for other terror attacks across Europe, such as Hanau shootings or 2016 Berlin truck attack, where less people were killed. User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"User:Ecrusized failed to bring a valid reason for deleting this article."

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: Perhaps open your eyes before so presumptuous? "WP:NOTNEWS. Insignificant, one off airstrike among hundreds, if not thousands of airstrikes in the span of the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Ecrusized (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many casualties, has significant coverage in various reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources except for routine news coverage. To address some of the keep arguments:
1. A number of people were killed – Just an arbitrary number that is not in any way relevant to WP:N or WP:NEVENTS.
2. Similar articles exist or they should all be discussed together – That doesn't mean this should be kept. The notability of this article has to stand on its own, and there's no guarantee that those article are about notable subjects.
3. It's bad, a war crime, or a terrorist attack – WP:TDLI/WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We're not here to pick sides in a real world conflict. In some !votes this approaches WP:SOAPBOXing, which is a conduct issue and should result in a warning.
4. Its notability can be determined later – Then it can have an article later. We don't create articles about things that might be notable in the future.
5. It's covered in reliable sources – WP:GNG requires that these be secondary sources, and WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE require that coverage continue beyond the news cycle.

I'm hoping that the closer will consider whether these keep !votes are valid, and I suggest that editors be reminded about WP:ATA when they use arguments that are listed there. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The keep votes are valid. Many similar articles indicate consensus.

Its notability is already established.

It is not a routine coverage cause it's a not routine event. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see it as that this article wins all the Wikipedia:Notability-points. I am also puzzled why this article is up for deletion when all these US high school Wikipedia articles exist of schools whom are neither notable nor special. I can not understand why somebody would think that Gilbert High School of Arizona has a bigger impact than this horrible attack on innocent people in Chernihiv. Not that I am advocating that there are too many Wikipedia articles about US high schools, I am saying that it is better to have too many articles (on Wikipedia) then too few. I also think that nobody should become used or in any way or "administrative" the death of innocent people by bombing in any war or conflict everywhere. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES:

Before 2017, secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence, but following a February 2017 RFC, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist, and are still subject both to the standards of notability, as well as those for organizations.

I don't know whether that specific school is notable or not, but this is generally why there is a lot of articles about schools where there otherwise wouldn't be. Presumably, AfD discussions would delete some/most of these schools, but if there's no reason for an AfD, many of them will remain MarkiPoli (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication of notability for this article. Russia has been indiscriminately striking civilians for a long while now, so one of these airstrikes is not independently notable. Like Thebiguglyalien said, many of the !keep votes include obvious WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, even one of them citing a US high school having an article as the reason why this should be kept. In addition, being a terrorist strike does not make it notable. There have been countless bombings in war zones that don’t have articles. Cutlass ^Ciera 21:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about other stuff exists, it's a about existing practices in English Wikipedia. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep or merge to a list article on comparable strikes in the conflict. I came here to close the discussion, but I find many of the "keep" !votes are poorly articulated in policy. Nonetheless, the article contains sources providing substantial coverage for the event, sufficient to meet the WP:GNG, and I don't know how coverage of an airstrike killing a dozen and a half civilians can be considered "routine". BD2412 T 02:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources per WP:GNG would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see this article passing the WP:TENYEARTEST. Number of casualties, while tragic, does not indicate this attack being more notable, and nothing indicates this airstrike is anything special aside from lack of defense missiles. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this article passing TENYEAR, or TWENTYYEARTESTS. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event covered by many news sources. Does not fail WP:NEVENT. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another attack in the ongoing conflict, I don't see this as notable. Sadly, these events happen almost daily now. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the deadliest attack in weeks. The timeline and most important events of greatest conflict since end of World War are significant and notable for encyclopedia, without a doubt. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep but if it's merged, a good place would be Chernihiv strikes (2022–present). Niafied (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. While it could be argued that this discussion should be closed as No consensus I find the new accounts who popped up to argue for Deletion more than a little suspicious. AFD is not a place that new editors find on their first few days editing. Plus those editors arguing to Keep this article are AFD regulars I trust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Newton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. None of the cited sources are considered reliable. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:ENT/WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raqib Sheikh (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartland (Canadian TV series): probably her most well known role, trivial amount of coverage [7], [8], outside of that, only CBC promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not about her well known role, but the fact that all the cited sources in this page aren't considered reliable, as per the Wikipedia's reliable sources list:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 103.237.36.24 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if it gets !deleted as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Izzac Leiberheir, you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here, you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources if not all were based on a notable film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, "multiple and lead roles". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). But the film.is notable and she was much credited for it. I have no other option that this meets notability guidelines.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Theroadislong, appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, redirect seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM), it should be kept, if not —redirect per WP:ATD. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between redirect and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources here look good enough. And here's another one from a major newspaper in 2013. A decade of media coverage! And really, 10 seasons in a major national TV series - I'm not sure why we are here. Nfitz (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the sources are reliable? Because they don't seem reliable to me, as per Wikipedia's reliable source list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. None of the cited sources within the article are on the list. And as per my knowledge about Wikipedia, when an article does not have reliable sources as references, which is when some or at least one these sources is not cited, then there's a big reason to delete the article. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting, User:Raqib Sheikh that a 120-year old Postmedia broadsheet is not a reliable source? That list came about to document bad sources. The Toronto Star - the largest newspaper in the nation, and the paper of record in Toronto isn't there as well. Neither is The Gazette - the largest English-language paper in Quebec. Would you discount those? Their lack of presence on that list simply indicates no one has ever felt a need to question it! Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Believe it satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:39, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MorphThing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advert of non-notable (only trivial coverage) website. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Websites. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything beyond name checks. We can't have an article exclusively sourced to primary, first-party sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary, user-generated sources and trivial listings found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:53, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James A. O'Flaherty[edit]

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

Biography of subject that doesn't meet WP:NBIO or WP:MUSICBIO or other criteria. (Article was created, seemingly, by a family member. And relies entirely on sources written by family members. Was speedy deleted in 2007. Was restored, after request from creator, shortly afterwards - on the basis that notability might be established by "news reports" and having a music retreat "named for him". However, the only news report mentioned (which doesn't appear to be verifiable) seems to be about the music retreat. Rather than the subject. And while it is a credit to the man/family/community that the event was so-named, it doesn't establish notability. Even if the event was notable (and I would question whether it is), notability isn't transferrable.) My own WP:BEFORE has returned nothing to indicate that NBIO or SIGCOV are met. WP:COI and WP:NOTMEMORIAL are also relevant. Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG all sources seem to be related to the subject. Mztourist (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator nailed the problems with the article. It is possible that the Irish music retreat was named after this gentleman, but the retreat itself is not very notable and the gentleman's music career appeared to be semi-pro at best. This article is clearly an attempted memorial that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, where notability is key. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for the reasons outlined in the nomination InDimensional (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SNOW. There are literally no sources on the page independent of the subject or his family. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sinatra (mixtape)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS, unable to find any reliable sources for the mixtape. Only able to find something about The YS Collection compilation, which is not this mixtape. I found this review from Sputnikmusic, but it only critiques the mixtape and offers no further insight to the mixtape apart from surface-level coverage. Regardless, one source isn't enough for notability. Locust member (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No source(s) to indicate notability nor to establish WP:SIGCOV. @T.C.G. [talk] 22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:51, 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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seward, Oklahoma[edit]

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

As the subject of the article is an unincorporated community with a population of just 26 with no notable details listed about it beyond it being named after William H. Seward, it does not appear to be sufficiently notable to have an article of its own. CoolieCoolster (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oklahoma and US. -CoolieCoolster (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, We usually consider all populated places to be notable, regardless of how small their population may be. Samoht27 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are 26 people living there, it passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 22:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge content to Logan County, Oklahoma as census tracts and unincorporated places are not legally recognized and need to meet GNG.James.folsom (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a small community, but it's recognized as one by the U.S. Census Bureau, which means it passes WP:GEOLAND. It also wasn't too hard to find significant coverage of it in regional newspapers: [9] [10]. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation}
keep We have consistently kept towns represented by CDPs. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seward is a community officially recognized by the U.S. Census and a well-recognized geographic location among central Oklahomans. There are also numerous locations with smaller populations that are still considered notable, so that is not a valid criterion for deletion. 162.129.251.104 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CDP are not designated by the Census Bureau, but by local authorities. So they are technically not officially recognized by that organization, the locals define them and the census gives the the statistics for them. James.folsom (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To become a CDP, a populated settlement has to satisfy criteria that is enough to justify notability. Contributor892z (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seward is listed here (look at page 866) so it satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Contributor892z (talk) 13:30, 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 merge‎ to Legacy of Roberto Clemente. And/or to Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory, whichever interested editors prefer. Sandstein 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Roberto Clemente (Louisville, Kentucky)[edit]

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

Not a notable statue. And I don't know how relevant this is but the location is also not significant to the baseball player who is depicted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Baseball, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and redirect (my comment below), a prominent artwork in the Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory museum's statue gallery, this statue is only one of two of Clemente on Wikipedia. ~~I'm not understanding why it should be deleted, although it's a stub that could be expanded with text and~~ a photograph the statue depicts one of America's most famous and honored baseball players and humanitarians. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless some actual content can be scraped together in which case it might just merit a merge, either to the man or the museum.TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. This subject is reasonably notable per sources provided in the article and its talk page, but the question here really is whether there will ever be enough content to ever stretch this beyond a tiny stub. Coverage of this subject in Legacy of Roberto Clemente or Roberto Clemente should suffice. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I found several local sources covering the unveiling of the statue at the museum, but they all basically say the same thing about a routine ceremony for a routine statue (this museum has seven of them in its gallery) about an extraordinary man. Without further WP:LASTING coverage, I don't think we need an article so say that so-and-so attended this event when Legacy of Roberto Clemente and Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory can cover the museum's exhibits and collection and his various forms of recognition. There are many other local news pieces about the museum's other exhibits, awards, artifacts, and events; this being a statue doesn't mean it can't still be covered in the main articles. The fame of the subject and the number of statues there are of him is not relevant to whether this particular one needs a stand-alone article. (Reywas92) (talk)
- @Reywas92, if it has to be merged, would prefer a merge and redirect to Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory. Clemente has many, many statues of him in hundreds of locations and I don't think - I'm sure you would agree - every statue of Clemente merits a mention in the main articles. There are a few mentioned in the article which are relevant to Clemente's legacy or if he has a personal to the place. The obvious one, of course, is Pittsburgh.

There are hundreds of statues of Roberto Clemente? Where? There is this one in the museum of the Louisville Slugger bat manufacturer and there is one in Pittsburgh. Having articles about these two prominent statues are not overwhelming Wikipedia servers and should be kept. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:EVERYTHING argument "Wikipedia has space for it", not based on policy. I think Louisville Slugger Museum & Factory would be the better merge/redirect target, though Legacy of Roberto Clemente should also mention it. I don't think the statue is even that "prominent", it's just one of seven similar ones inside the museum, with no coverage beyond the museum's unveiling event. Not that any public art is automatically notable, but larger ones outdoors are at least sometimes included in various guides as visible local landmarks or don't always have obvious redirect targets like parts of a museum's exhibits. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Randy's question: according to the Society of American Baseball Research, Clemente has more statues and memorials than anyone in sports other than Pele, the great football player. There are several in Puerto Rico and numerous on mainland United States. Here is the link if you're interested.

But I would say the statue outside the PNC Park, the stadium of the only MLB team he played for, in the American city with which he is most associated with, is a far more prominent than one of seven statues in a museum located in a city where he - as far as I can tell - never set foot in. It is not uncommon for museums to have a statue series. The Baseball Hall of Fame have quite a few statues in its building as well, including one of Clemente (which itself is part of one statue, alongside Jackie Robinson and Lou Gehrig).

And to clarify to @Reywas92: the statue's mention can be added manually of course and I will do so. What I meant was that the article redirect itself should be to the Museum's page. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good research. Since there are only eight statues I don't understand why articles about them should be deleted (a merge is a delete's twin). There are multiple articles on Wikipedia about statues of the same individual, some of America's founders among them. People have put up eight statues of Roberto Clemente because he deserves much honor and respect. Maybe if there were hundreds of statues, an article on each one might be an overload. But since there are only eight, and other individuals have many more than that, the only reason I can see merging is if an article is written about the bat museum's notable statue gallery (and not just about the museum in general). Keeping this stand-alone page also maintains two major Wikipedia collections: Baseball, and statues (a major part of Wikipedia's visual art collection). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the statue collection its own section; these aren't a single exhibit or gallery. Expansion is welcome there but a separate article just for that is unnecessary. But this can cover the baseball and art "collections", without the need for individual standalone pages for individual items. I've also expanded Legacy of Roberto Clemente to describe this honor and respect. Reywas92^Talk 14:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing so, @Reywas92. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, I have nothing against having another article on a statue by Clemente. I just don't think this particular one is notable enough to have a stand alone article. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, have changed my comment to 'Merge', per this discussion and Reywas92's good work on the museum page. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:28, 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!} 05:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C.I.D. Investigators[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years and WP:NOTPLOT. Could redirect to List of Catch-22 characters as AtD JMWt (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPLOT and WP:SIGCOV both apply if this hasn't earned enough reception in reliable independent sources. Older books like this can sometimes have hidden coverage deep in other print sources, but WP:BEFORE indicates there isn't enough to separate this topic from the main book article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:43, 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 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hiranandani, Chennai[edit]

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

Previously deleted and salted at House of Hiranandani. This is not quite substantially identical to the deleted version, but I see no new in-depth sources to establish notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -it is just on the cusp of significant coverage. I'm not sure which way and would like others' input. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 15 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) 18:59, 18 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!} 09:06, 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 06:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lahyani[edit]

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

Contested draftification (essentially copy/pasted back from Draft:Michael Lahyani). Borderline A7/G11 IMO, no real coverage beyond the standard SPIP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, United Arab Emirates, and Switzerland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 18 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!} 09:03, 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 06:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hussain Abdul Rahman[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Previously deleted. Regarding real world notability the strongest two things are that he was the father of the President of the Maldives and he won a "National Award of Honor" for" for "contribution in the area of religious awareness and religious education". Of the references, two are short obit descriptions, one lists the award recipients (with no other text) and the rest don't cover him. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 18 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!} 09:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BIORELATED. Noorullah (talk) 00:38, 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 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 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RooR[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage on the internet, nearly unsourced advertisement. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Germany. Flounder fillet (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 18 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!} 09:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A not-notable bong maker in Germany. The article was created 15 years ago, and only has four sentences. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hereford[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a reference to his employer's website; but cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and do not think he meets WP:NACTOR. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an article for deletion - definitely meets the criteria for actor. Multiple credits in major film and tv shows. 2600:1700:4640:E70:ECCA:5D5:421E:ECB4 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "employer". Henry is an established actor having been on several films and TV shows as referenced in IMDB and trade magazines. There is no reason this page would be deleted. Thefilmsorcerer (talk) 22:15, 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) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG or NACTOR. A 21st-century actor and yet yields no results in Google News tells a lot. General searches also did not produce anything of use. Other than 1-2, the used refs aren't about him rather the films/shows he's starred in. X (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. His roles are all of the single-name supporting cast, so insignificant they don't even have a full name, or are throwaway characters. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Editors are encouraged to improve this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Winston[edit]

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

Zero inline sources in entire article, no evidence of significant notability online. The article is of significant length, but there are few sources and none inline. 2003 LN 6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 2003 LN 6 05:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Highly promotional and is practically a list of accomplishments without sourcing. Shadow311 (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are hundreds of reviews of his work, and he has directed and/or choreographed numerous West End musicals. Obviously, no one did the research to add references to this article, but that is not a justification for deletion at AfD. I agree that the massive list of credits should be severely culled, but that is a task for another day. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong news coverage exists as stated by Ssilvers. He seems to have some awards as well. IMO, it should not have been nominated. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:44, 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) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely meets WP:GNG although article needs clean up. Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes the writing is crummy needing a rewrite but notability is met here. X (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EBay API[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. While eBay is obviously notable, it's not clear that its API is. The article itself is extremely support with little more than a feature list, and the only sources are eBay itself. I would suggest merging into eBay but its really not obvious what the notability of this is--lots of websites have APIs. TheRealOj32 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. As per nom, there are tons of APIs out there, and there's nothing showing this one is notable. Discant X 06:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Due to lack of WP:RS coverage. There are notable APIs like Google APIs.GobsPint (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To play devil's advocate (on my own AfD), every link on Google APIs is from Google, AKA only primary sources. Would you really consider that to follow WP:RS? TheRealOj32 (talk) 05:48, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On-Demand Trading[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NORG. The sources are all paid PRs. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 06:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These are press releases. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, Alabama, Florida, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NORG as none of the cited sources cover the subject in depth. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 primary sources + 5 copies of the same press release ≠ notability. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly feel like this should be speedy delete on A7/G11 grounds, but I guess since it's already here may as run it for the full 7 days so it's G4 as well next time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accesswire[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP a before finds no significant coverage in independent sources, the article has only primary sources, seems like there is nothing else. Theroadislong (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They claim to lead the industry but according to customers they just spam press releases to some obscure websites. Polygnotus (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would need a major overhaul with proper sourcing to meet GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is one of the largest press release companies, it is well-known, so it's very very hard to find coverage that is independent from Accesswire. I've spent 15 minutes looking and I can't see anything. If someone can find and send over a few links that are, I am quite willing to change my vote to keep. Cleo Cooper (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as creator: Echoing Cleo. I created this page as it is a widely known company in the PR world, and (referenced quite extensively). I started this article as stub, to eventually work on it, but I never had the time. If someone can save it, please do. But as the creator, I remain neutral. Cheers, Reh man 10:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked for sources in several places that discuss the firm, but found nothing of use. yes, they are cited widely but to my knowledge that itself doesn't warrant notability without any sort of sig coverage of themselves. X (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - @Rehman:, I looked hard for sources but unfortunately am only finding websites that write content based on releases they have made. Nothing in-depth about the company which would be a requirement of WP:ORGCRIT. It is unfortunate as it is one of the more well-known press release distribution platforms. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Newbern, Alabama. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Braxton[edit]

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

Falls clearly within WP:SINGLEEVENT. Braxton is notable only for one event - the controversy over his mayoral election. He is not even notable for being mayor, as he has done nothing significant in his capacity as mayor (likely due to the controversy), and the position of mayor of this tiny town is not itself notable. The controversy is currently covered in the Newbern, Alabama, article, which is the appropriate place for that. There is no need to have this separate article whose subject is not notable. Ergo Sum 03:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ergo Sum 03:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider a page move (outside of AfD). This is a WP:BLP1E but the guidance on that gives three arms to consider as to whether the subject should have an article:
1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
On point (1) the nom is correct. Reliable sources only cover the subject with respect to this event. It is a BLP1E. On (2) I am unconvinced. It appears likely that the town will be forced to hold elections and the subject could win such elections, and that this would be notable and covered widely. That is speculation at this stage and WP:TOOSOON applies, but I don't think it is likely they will return to a low profile. On (3) the event is, in fact, quite significant, and is already reasonably well documented, although largely in primay sources.
So I think coverage of this is due. But the nom. also correctly points out it is covered in the Newbern, Alabama page. It should be there, but the case is significant enough and notable enough that I think, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there is a good case for a spinout page that discusses this in particular. People will be referring to this event for some time to come, and although it is again TOOSOON to judge the lasting impact, it is likely to be covered in secondary sources as a notable event in its own right. So I find that some article just on the event is due. The only remaining question is whether it is due as a BLP or due as an article on the event. If the latter, this article should be moved and covered as an article on the event and not as a BLP. This is in line with other BLP1Es, e.g. Lucia de Berk case. Note also arm 2 of BLP1E actually suggest merging with an article on the event, such an article being assumed. However that discussion need not be at AfD. An RM could be opened on the page instead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a word in response. I think it highly unlikely that one can say with any degree of confidence that the subject of the article is likely to become a high-profile figure. That would just be speculation and could be said about any other person or any other mayor of a tiny, rural town with less than 200 residents, which is not the standard BLP1E contemplates.

As for the significance of the event, that too seems minor and fleeting. Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. It seems that only two large news outlets wrote articles about the controversy and there has been no sustained coverage. In any event, WP's coverage of the controversy should be in the article about the town. Ergo Sum 19:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly willing to accept we may be WP:TOOSOON to judge the impact. I already made that point, but I disagree that Its coverage has been almost entirely by local sources that likely would not qualify as RS. A quick google of the name reveals that in addition to the UK's Guardian source on the page, it is also covered in the Daily Mail (we all know what we think about that one - but note it is a right wing source), ABC News, CNN, CBS, the Wall Street Journal etc. All of these are news sources, and reporting is generally a primary source but they are all (other than the Daily Mail) reliable sources. Then we have sources like the Equal Justice Initiative [11] and many similar. Also additional information, e.g. [12] - Law & Crime. Again, we are close to the event, and that is always problematic in separating secondary sources from primary, but there is a lot of coverage of this and it is worldwide. It is simply not true that this is entirely local sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, or re-scope to include the court case ala other one events. He as a person is not notable beyond the role. Star Mississippi 16:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Newbern, where the entire controversy can be covered comfortably. He's not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 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) 06:14, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Decision[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no references in the article and I can't find any reliable sources online covering the band. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. XabqEfdg (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see plenty of non-RS, looks like they last put anything out in 2005, and their albums are still available via eBay. Not my area of expertise, but I suspect this might be saveable if someone can find reviews. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that their first album was released in 16 countries to considerable acclaim. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I dug for sources and did not find any reliable ones. I unfortunately think an Allmusic bio is not enough when not coupled with reviews. According to this page, there exists one review in HM Magazine (formerly Heaven's Metal Magazine), but that's a bit thin as well. Scene-wise, the lack of coverage is not unexpected either, seeing as thrash metal was long out of favour when this band started releasing. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 23 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) 06:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gechichte. I also cannot find anything sufficint to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:NBAND Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find reliable sources on the subject. Yolandagonzales (talk) 19:57, 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 deleted‎ by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bir Uttam Shaheed Samad School and College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Appears to be a promo article for a secondary school for children of military personnel, mainly unsourced. BEFORE found promo, listings, routine mill news, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth // Timothy :: talk 05:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD from May 2023: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bir Uttam Shaheed Samad School and College, I can't see the original, but it may meet G4, based on the below, I've have G11'd it.

This is a official paid work by the institution and I have made by the institution order and this article represents a college in bangladesh. It is not a fake article. If anyone has trouble to believe it then you can visit the official website of the college and you can also check the Bengali Wikipedia, the college also has an article in the Bengali Wikipedia. The institution offered me to make an English article of it. So I think It should not be deleted from wikipedia. This article is made with real sources.

-Thank you Ahsan26 (talk) 05:46, 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. There's a lot of discussion, but the "delete" opinions carry the day. In terms of numbers, they're in a relatively substantial majority, 5 to 2 (plus one neutral and draftify each). In terms of arguments, if as here notability is the key issue, a "keep" minority can only prevent deletion by making a compelling policy-based argument for inclusion - i.e., references to the kind of in-depth, independent, reliable coverage that GNG requires. Here, this is not the case.

As regards draftification, an ATD also proposed, there is neither consensus for it nor do I think it would be useful - we draftify stuff if there are reasonable prospects of improvement, but here it seems that three weeks of newspaper archive searches have uncovered most if not all that has been written about the subject. Regardless, if new sources are discoverd, draftification is still possible via WP:REFUND. Sandstein 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Corkran[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Being a member of the nobility does not equate to notability. Sources show that he lived , that he had a family and worked as a coutier to a minor royal and that he died, but nothing beyond that. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a thoroughly nice gentleman, but absolutely nothing to say about him, no sign of notability. Merely having a genealogy and existing as a courtier on the fringes of the UK's rather enormous royal family doesn't confer notability. Elemimele (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A knighthood very clearly meets WP:ANYBIO #1. Nobody with a confirmed knighthood has ever been deleted. He also has an obituary, albeit a short one, in a major national newspaper. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. KCVO wasn't conferred as a significant honour for doing anything in particular, it was a knighthood given in recognition of service to the monarch, basically an automatic consequence of his job, a high-society version of receiving a carriage clock when you retired as a station-master. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. We should therefore focus on whether the job is wikipedia-notable. Basically if we have nothing to say about an equerry except that they existed, it's hard to justify an article. In Corkran's case, even his obituary, which is contemporary and presumably written by someone with the information at their fingertips, struggles to say anything about him beyond that he went to school. In terms of deleting knights, we've converted consorts of monarchs to redirects based on the fact their notability, like Corkran's, is only inherited.

It's also a very bad sign that the article is almost entirely genealogy, spending longer talking about his parents and offspring than it does about him himself. Elemimele (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all knighthoods are equal. Indeed. KCVO is two levels above Knight Bachelor, the lowest level of knighthood! Essentially claiming it's not a real knighthood is purely your POV. Claiming his notability is inherited is patently ridiculous. He isn't notable for being married to someone notable; he received his knighthood for his achievements and service just like any other knight. Anyone appointed equerry to Beatrice would have received this title, irrespective of what they did. No they wouldn't. He was her comptroller and treasurer, the head of her household, not just her equerry. Like it or not, these people held highly influential and notable positions in the United Kingdom, hence their knighthoods. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between levels of honours, and Wikipedia notability, is rather complicated. For example, a British Empire Medal is, in honours terms, one of the lowest, but it is never awarded as a retirement present, always for doing something fairly outstanding. It is often awarded to quite ordinary people who have made themselves extraordinary by their activities, which means it's often a sign of Wikipedia notability. An OBE or MBE, on the other hand, is higher, but is often given as a retirement present to senior civil figures, and therefore (sometimes) reflects merely that they had a certain job. As a sign of Wikipedia notability, it needs to be interpreted with context.

Again, the whole system is coloured with an inclination to give an award at a level depending on the social status of the recipient (which isn't something we need to reflect in Wikipedia; we're interested in what the person did). So, for example, if a university professor or academic stands out from the crowd, he will get a MBE or OBE (for example Alison Mary Smith), while a research assistant in the same field (for example Anne Edwards (botanist)), if they stand out from the crowd (which is much less likely, harder to do, and more notable when it's achieved!), they will get a British Empire medal.

In Corkran's case, of course he got a high grade of knighthood, because he was working with a high grade of nobility.

My case against an article on Corkran is simply that we have no source whatsoever to say that he did anything whatsoever (except be an equerry who went to school). What's the point in an article? Elemimele (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that grades of honours often depended, and to an extent still depend, on grade of job (e.g. traditionally BEM for an NCO, MBE for a junior or warrant officer, OBE for a field officer, CBE for a colonel or brigadier, KBE for a general officer). However, it is also true that those who got higher honours were also far more prominent by the very nature of the grade of their job, so I don't think this is an especially valid argument. I think it is very hard to argue that anyone with an honour at the level of companion/commander or knight/dame is not notable. It is odd for Wikipedia to say that people are not notable when the British government considers they are; even though we are not bound by government decrees, it is simple common sense that anyone awarded this level of honour is notable in the real world and should therefore be considered notable by Wikipedia, which, for crying out loud, considers many teenage Youtubers to be notable just because they have a significant internet presence! For obvious reasons, Sir Victor did not have, but that does not mean he was not a notable person in his day and his field, which was royal administration. It is not our place to decide that one field of endeavour is less notable than another.

Incidentally, he didn't get his KCVO as a "retirement present"; he was knighted six years before he retired and was awarded the CVO, which would also make him notable under ANYBIO, 22 years before that for being private secretary and comptroller of the household to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. And the BEM has very often been awarded as a "retirement present" after a long career of service just like any other honour; that doesn't, however, make it any less significant, as it does indeed recognise a long and distinguished career in the person's chosen field. We do not generally consider that a BEM (or MBE, OBE, RVM, MVO or LVO) meets ANYBIO simply because for the most part, with certain exceptions such as sportspeople, actors, TV presenters, etc, recipients are in careers or at grades where they do not tend to register on notability scales. That is not the case with CBEs or higher, as these are usually awarded to senior people who make a significant mark on society, even though they may not figure greatly on the internet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your User Page, you say "I do not believe that Wikipedia should feature articles about completely non-notable people". That is surely the case here: what did this person, today completely forgotten by everyone apart from relatives, do to make him notable? I would go for Delete. Athel cb (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning ordinary people with no claim to notability. A KCVO, an entry in Who's Who and an obit in The Times are all claims to notability. No knight or recipient of a CVO is non-notable by definition. Why do you think people receive honours? For doing nothing notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 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!} 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: definitely notable, has one source which makes it KEEP. I’m participating here because non living person’s article is being created here with an image royal family, with source I can’t find any reason why it should be deleted. AnkkAnkur (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Plus they're a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." The sourcing demonstrates trivial mentions, not significant coverage. Take this "Morning's Gossip" from the Daily Mirror for example. The entirety of the relevant part of this source is one sentence "Mr Victor Cochrane has arrived at Osborne Cottage in attendance on the Princess" this is plainly not the sourcing required to demonstrate notability. Simply being a servant to a British royal does not mean you inherit notability. AusLondonder (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, WP:INHERITED does not apply (and note it's only an essay in any case). He is not notable for anything inherited from anyone else but for the achievements that gave him a CVO and then a KCVO, which are only awarded to people who are already notable. I do wish people would stop citing the wrong thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If that's the case that these awards are only awarded to "already notable" people rather than favourite servants then we need to see the GNG-level coverage to prove that. I will happily change my mind if I see something better than one line mentions in gossip columns. AusLondonder (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I entirely agree that there unfortunately isn't much coverage (maybe if the internet had been around when he was alive there would have been a lot more!), but I also can't believe that anyone could seriously claim that someone with a CVO and KCVO (awarded in his case for holding two entirely different posts, incidentally; the CVO was awarded to him before he was a courtier) was not notable. It should be self-evident that these high honours are not randomly distributed to nobodies for doing nothing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or draftify - Look, we're doing this wrong, and on the face of it the nom. has a point. The page has already improved since the nomination, but it is not a clear WP:HEY because the sources being used are primary sources. If your project is the history of Corkran, this would be a great start. But we are not writing histories, we are writing an encyclopaedia, and you need to find the secondary sources that already exist and build the page from there. Writing a page from primary sources is original research. You are doing history, not an encyclopaedia. Where are these secondary sources? I don't know. I don't see them, and I did not find them in initial searches. And for that reason this should be a delete. Publish the history and you can definitely have a page, but until someone does that, this is pretty iffy. But here's why I am making a weak case to keep this article: because this is a subject that might well elicit history articles - perhaps has already done so. There is certainly plenty in primary sources, and the shortcuts to assess notability (has a knighthood) are far from perfect, but not irrelevant. And if this were the state of the page after months of work, I would be searching hard for a redirect target at this point, on the basis that searches have failed. But, in fact, this page is week old and was nominated less than a day after it was started. No discussion on the talk page. WP:DEMOLISH applies. If I had my way, I would want this closed as "no consensus" to give the page creator a couple of months to knock this into shape before it can be renominated. Perhaps I should bold "draftify" instead (ETA, I bolded both), but ultimately it is a historical subject, a figure that we certainly might expect to see treated by historians (if not thoroughly nor directly) and a darn sight more likely to be notable than a lot of pages that we seem to want to keep. Keep iit or draftify it, but don't delete it. At least, not until we can see the final shape of it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this some more and in the light of Rupples' additional comments, I don't think I can justify keep. But my comments about DEMOLISH remain, and think we should draftify this. That is not merely backdoor deletion. It gives the creator a chance to develop this with secondary sources if any exist, and if they don't, it gives them an easy route to transfer some content to Princess Beatrice as appropriate. It is a new page, and draft space is meant for such incubation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some thoughtful arguments put forward for both keep and delete. My search found lots of mentions in newspapers stating he accompanied notable people at events plus notices of his marriage. There's also newspaper obituaries, basically stating positions held. No entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography though, which to my mind weighs against notabilty despite the honours received. I also note that Corkran despite serving Princess Beatrice for 25 years isn't mentioned in that featured article, slightly strange, but not a determining factor. Overall neutral, although the article content, which is a list of roles and wikilinked name-drops does leave some doubt as to whether notability has or can be established. Rupples (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that only a small minority of people have entries in the DNB. The vast majority of people we have articles on do not. The vast majority of people with knighthoods do not. He does, of course, have an entry in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must know that WP:WHOSWHO is a deprecated source and does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's been deprecated as a source for information because its entries are self-authored (although it is fair to say that most of its entries are accurate, so this is probably a little unfair). However, as you must know, that is separate from establishing notability, since those included are selected by its staff on the basis of their notability and neither apply nor pay to be included. Almost all people with honours at this level are included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. I would have thought Corkran would at least be mentioned in this book, given the length of his service to Princess Beatrice: The Shy Princess: The Life of Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, the Youngest Daughter and Constant Companion of Queen Victoria by David Duff [13]. A search of the copy on Internet Archive, has no mention of him in this biography, which surely adds to doubts over Corkran's notability. Rupples (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep this demonstrates again that he simply wasn't a notable individual, even in his time. Knighthoods are routinely awarded to royal aides and that does not mean they get a notability free pass. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have zero PAG-based justification for this topic being a standalone article other than the debunked assertion that simply receiving some honor corresponds to coverage sufficient to meet N. Zero IRS SIGCOV sources have been identified, and obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know it hasn't been "debunked"? Some would like it to be, but it hasn't been. obviously being "selected" for inclusion in an unreliable source counts for absolutely nothing. Yup, obviously someone else who hasn't actually bothered to take in what they're citing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You admitted recently that you feel that the part of ANYBIO that states "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" is "utterly extraneous". That's unfortunately not how policy or the English language works. AusLondonder (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Do you really feel the need to post a comment after everything I write? How is what you've just said at all relevant to what I or JoelleJay wrote? And please don't cherrypick and take out of context what I write either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Your reply to Joelle Jay was unnecessary. AusLondonder (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  No, I was pointing out flaws in her entire comment. That's clearly a legitimate response. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has the British Newspaper Archive been checked? I can check tomorrow if this is not already closed by then. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral between keep and delete. I don't see an obvious AtD. I'm taking into account both the guidance on honours in WP:ANYBIO and the lack of indepth coverage, which means the subject probably doesn't satisfy the GNG. I also note that satisfying WP:NBIO#Additional criteria does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Rupples (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the pass of WP:ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight), the decent expansion of the article proves that Corkran passes WP:NBASIC, which states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability – the many mentions of him and coverage across years of his life, as well as the nation-wide coverage of his death (some of which has some depth and could be considered sigcov imo, e.g. [14]), proves that this satisfies it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Nothing to indicate this meets WP:ANYBIO, and the arguements towards such boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources. // Timothy :: talk 03:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this not pass WP:NBASIC, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability? There seems to be a pretty fair case for this passing ANYBIO as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I said above, this is a new page. Rupples, you say there is no obvious AtD, but draftify is available. Are people opposed to that AtD? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The case you put forward for draftify is a good one. If the article creator, who has been properly notified of this discussion, indicated acceptance, it would tip my recommendation in that direction. Rupples (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of draftifying? Its already an excellent article at nearly 600 words and contains a number of different sources that IMO satisfy WP:NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability); not to mention some sources that could be argued as SIGCOV and a pass of ANYBIO (which needs to hold some weight). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC states:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
It is noted in the discussion above that sources are primary and that coverage of the subject is not significant. You point to one source (paywalled) which tells us of his death, confirms he was Gentleman-in-Waiting to princess Beatrice while in Spain and appointed an Equerry and then treasurer of the Household. We learn he was educated at Eton, the names of his parents and died 3 days after a serious operation. Is that SIGCOV? Well it's something. Reliable yes, secondary and independent? Well the notice was probably placed there and it is a report of death. It is not great, but even if we accepted it, it is still not multiple. I am not seeing an NBASIC pass here. But a source analysis is welcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBASIC does mention that quote, and then below it states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which is what we have here (and I'll note that the obit I referenced is 164 words; that's SIGCOV IMO for a subject like this). The Burke's Peerage source may be primary (?), but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC, given that they allow us to develop a reasonable portrait of his life, and considering that they do and that we have someone who passes WP:ANYBIO with an honor no subject has ever been deleted while possessing ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but the many newspaper refs absolutely can count towards NBASIC". But NBASIC says
Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't previously heard the interpretation that newspapers are primary sources and can't be used to establish notability; IMO that'd be a pretty drastic change from what seems to be accepted practice. Its also worth noting that the one ref notes that "he proved his business and social capacity in a way that ensured him a great popularity" – something like that would highly likely result in further coverage as well, from my understanding – not every source from 1909 is currently accessible to us. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS, and the policy: WP:PRIMARY - see note d. But, in fact, newspapers as a class are not primary sources. The question is more nuanced, and will depend on the question being asked of the source. Which sources do you think are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with the nation-wide coverage of his death? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just reporting his death? See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A documentary of his life? that would be secondary. Something in between? Let's analyse it more closely. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:21, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myth of superabundance[edit]

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

Term was coined by Stewart Udall in his book 'Quiet Crisis' and seems to be restricted to that and then article was heavily beset by WP:OR and lacking ins sources outside of original research. I believe that the content that remains would find a better home on the Stewart Udall page itself as a subsection or as a brief mention beside his published works. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Samoht27 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, WP:ONESOURCE. Orange sticker (talk) 10:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source is original research. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 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!} 04:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820)[edit]

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

POV fork of [15] backed entirely by self published obsolete sources. Creator was recently blocked for socking. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan. Skynxnex (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article doesn't pass WP:GNG. I nowhere read about a topic called Maratha-Rajput conflict (1800-1820). Nothing of significance happened in 1800 or 1820 which can start or end any such conflicts. There were many conflicts in present day Rajasthan around that time like kingdoms of Marwar, Mewar, Jaipur, Scindhia, Holkar, Pindari etc all fighting with one another, Marwar-Jaipur conflicts, Holkar-Scindhia conflicts, pindari helping one kingdom abandoning them and helping other, all of these happened simultaneously, so it can not be said that Rajputs like Mewar, Marwar, Jaipur etc were fighting unitedly against United Maratha forces of Holkar, Scindhia and pindaris. I seriously think the article is more like generalization of almost a century long warfare in this period of anarchy which also had other players like Mughals and many more new entrants like Sikhs, British, and many soldiers of fortunes working under some powers and later switching sides. In my opinion this article doesn't pass notability issue. Just show some references or citations where this particular topic is mentioned separately, or even just mentioned. This article is nothing but a rubbish page made by a abusive account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4052:91F:698F:5590:CBF8:CC1B:D8BB (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Grammar School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Content of article has been significantly expanded since previous nom but no citations have been added that demonstrate WP:NSCHOOL has been met. Since the previous AfD closed as draftify the article creator has moved it to mainspace twice without addressing or discussing the notability issue. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Rich Smith, @FatCat96, @Aydoh8, @Indefensible and @GraziePrego who participated previously, and @Liz who draftified for the second time. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Ghana. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Delete: I Have added some sources but they are mostly either unreliable, or don't have significant coverage. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources are interviews and not online sources. Thus, references were not attached. Samuel Ola (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiews are a primary source, in order for the article to be kept we need "significant coverage from reliable secondary sources". 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ There is a distinct lack of sourcing on the page, but we are told it was established in 1956 so this is a well established school, and this is born out by having an active old students association (WESGOSA) which helps verify several notable alumni already listed, including the first lady of Ghana [16]. So this is a school with significant notable alumni. It is also the case study school in this Ph.D. thesis [17] on learning styles and academic performance in Biology. This study [18] also uses the school as the experimental group in their study on teaching trigonometry. Although the secondary information about the schools in these studies is limited, they do add to the case that the school is significant, well established and of note within the community. There is also a lot of news paper coverage, as noted above. Those are primary sources. What remains lacking at this point is a good secondary source that verifies the information already on the page. If we had that, this would be a clear keep. I have not found that yet, but I think there is a suitable case, based on the notable alumni, the active old student association, and the academic references, to argue this crosses the line. (ETA: We do have this history, from a newspaper, written on the occasion of the school being 50 years old. [19] )Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - for me there just are not enough suitable sources for !keep. I agree one might think there are sources for a school of this age, however I do not think we can move from draft without suitable sourcing. Given that it has moved back and forth from draft to main, it seems like the best option is !delete until such time someone can rewrite with sufficient sources to satisfy the AfC process. JMWt (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes, I had not spotted that draft back-and-forth. Perhaps the performer of the move can comment. On the basis of the lack of in page sourcing yet repeat moving to mainspace (making draftify unavailable as an ATD) I would be inclined to move to delete pending some explanation on that. Is there a redirect ATD available? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Samuel Ola: Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the history, I would like a stronger consensus. Should that end up in delete/draftify, a promise to respect consensus would also be ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firming up my earlier comments. I note that we do not have the secondary sources, and the lack of comment from the nom. and my own failure to turn any up lead me to believe that we cannot write an encyclopaedic article here. Considering the history and the IAR aspect of my original argument, I believe delete is appropriate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I was considering a Merge but we have an editor objecting to a Merge so I'll close as Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtunistan conflict[edit]

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

Already mentioned in similar page of Afghanistan-Pakistan border skirmishes, page isn't distinguishable for WP:GNG and is mostly background information rather then any relevant information about a major invasion.

The sources are also extremely lacking/poor, many being blog sites. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Noorullah (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out brother, now it's completely rebranded and is far more notable than it was, I gave more conflicts and stuff like that Waleed Ukranian (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll give more information about the invasion and I think it's pretty notable enough to have it's own page Waleed Ukranian (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By renaming the article and changing the topic To Pashtunistan conflict the scope of article has changed, the article has known importance about the history of confrontation's between both countries, it should be given time as this requires a lot of work and hence shouldn't be deleted. Rahim231 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't meet the notability guidelines and appears to be a collection of unrelated events thrown together to create an article on a subject that isn't connected to the events discussed. Additionally, the author changed the page's title from its original one to a completely different title after the AFD was initiated. This suggests uncertainty about which title is appropriate for the content, indicating doubt about the notability of the original title. They then shifted the article to a new title, perhaps in an attempt to establish notability under a different name. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't understand, how are they unrelated M Waleed (talk) 03:17, 25 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!} 23:36, 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Afghanistan–Pakistan border skirmishes, as per nomination. Samoht27 (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should all the Pakistan India skirmishes be merged into one, perhaps not it was the first round of skirmishes, second one was bajaur campaign , third one during soviet Afghan war and this is the fourth round on which the article is about, so I think it shouldn't be Waleed (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article appears to be a collection of unrelated events without a coherent focus. The user who created this article has a history of producing articles with a mix of unrelated content. For example, the "2024 Afghanistan–Pakistan skirmishes" article should focus on Pakistani airstrikes in Afghanistan and a minor border clash, but it contains various unrelated incidents. This inconsistency undermines the article's notability and clarity. Given these issues, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for structure and cohesion. which makes it unsuitable for retention. War Wounded (talk) 00:07, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE Lance Stafford Larson Award[edit]

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

Non-notable student award. Broc (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Computing, and Maryland. Broc (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be less noteworthy than the ACM SRC, the APS Apker Award or the Morgan Prize? Heraldicdam1 (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what any of those are either, to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ACM Student Research Competition, LeRoy Apker Award, Morgan Prize. All student research awards that are regarded as very prestigious in their respective fields of CS, physics and mathematics. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vaguely mentioned here [20] in a non-secondary source. I don't see anything about the award otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a fair bit more:

[21]https://www.ee.ucla.edu/ece-phd-students-research-recognized-in-ieee-lance-stafford-larson-best-student-paper-competition/

[22]https://www.khaleejtimes.com/article/aus-student-wins-top-international-honour

[23]https://eee.metu.edu.tr/node/1040 Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited the article with secondary sources. It's fair critique that it should not have relied on primary sources to begin with. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still struggle to see how the additional listed sources above, who all read as "X has won the award", contribute to notability. The simple existence of an award and the fact that it is indeed awarded does not mean it deserves a page on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at:List of IEEE awards. What coverage is there about e.g. the IEEE Richard Harold Kaufmann Award, except for award announcements?

By the standard you are advocating, no prizes except for the Nobel, Turing, Abel, Fields and Breakthrough Prize deserve a page. Yet, others, like the Kaufmann Award, exist because they are thought of as highly indicative of great work within their respective fields - who often are too niche and specizaized to receive attention outside of award announcements. Heraldicdam1 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid WP:WHATABOUTX, we are discussing this specific page, not other ones. Broc (talk) 12:56, 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) 02:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I opened the refs and saw what I expected - niche coverage of a non notable award. Desertarun (talk) 06:57, 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 redirect‎ to Football in Wallis and Futuna. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Wallis and Futuna[edit]

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

No citations, all the blue links are redirects or links to cities/towns on the islands. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, Lists, France, and Islands. Skynxnex (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just WP:BOLD redirect it to Football in Wallis and Futuna. Reywas92^Talk 13:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Or redirect to Football in Wallis and Futuna. Svartner (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as collection of random information, and also purge the template "List of association football clubs in Oceania". Geschichte (talk) 16:25, 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 Wallis and Futuna as possible search term. Giant Snowman 18:29, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Alasgarov[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP, No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The article says that he was a radio announcer. The on-line source had only a brief listing of him. Was not able to review the other 2 sources; they are off line Azerbaijani sources. (one appeared to be on line but that was just a link to a Wikipedia article about the source in general.) but content is indicative of them not being GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (country). Skynxnex (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 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!} 01:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran at the 2026 Asian Games[edit]

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This article was created by the same user who created Singapore at the 2026 Asian Games and Vietnam at the 2026 Asian Games. As was said by CycloneYoris, it is still too early for this article and the accompanying articles to exist. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iran. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Author has been warned numerous times, but they're clearly ignoring and not heeding any of these warnings. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all other 2026 Asian Games articles created by author per nom and TOOSOON. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 02:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and oppose draftspace, as way WP:TOOSOON and will still be too soon for a year or more. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly way WP:TOOSOON for the article to exist. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments on the Singapore one. Geschichte (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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