< April 27	April 29 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eastern Province representative cricketers. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sihle Magongoma[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 cricketer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Cahalane[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, an Australian rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I really found were transactional announcements (2015, 2017). JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided: Can't imagine a player with 93 appearances for one club and had apparently played for others has so little written about him. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Unable to find anything other than routine coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any independent reliable evidence of WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Contributor892z (talk) 06:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of dog breeds from India[edit]

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

There's already a category for this and no other specific dog breed lists exist. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list has more information than a category so is thus more useful. There is no reason they can't both exist, in according to the rules. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Perfect valid information and navigational list. Adding in images and additional information, like List of Italian dog breeds has, would make it even more useful for these two purposes. Dream Focus 00:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case WP:NLIST applies, which I believe is failed. Reliable sources discuss dog breeds within India (which includes many foreign breeds), but not specifically breeds of Indian origin. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the second paragraph in that. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists ... Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Dream Focus 01:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((Indian dogs)): I'm not a fan of this list because it seems to be something of an duplicate and unintentional content fork from the Indian dogs template and the List of Dog Breeds. I massively overhauled this list awhile back because it had deviated from the template quite significantly (and it was unsourced). I anticipate it will continue to be poorly maintained as it's not the usual place we list dogs by country in WP:Dogs - again thats usually the navigational templates. There is precedence for articles (not lists) on broad categories of dogs associated with a country, such as China's tugou or Russia's Laika (dog type), these dogs have extensive history and development that ties them together; however, Indian dog breeds dont share such a set of characteristics. Apologies for the rambling. Cheers! Annwfwn (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this list should be kept. It helps us who are from india to look up indian dogs. 2409:4071:DBA:E3E9:8848:14F:71D3:A287 (talk) 06:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a category for this: [1] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets CLN as a useful Wikipedia navigation list. As for duplicate arg, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Overlapping categories, lists and navigation templates are not considered duplicative. Wikipedia navigation lists do not need to pass NLIST. // Timothy :: talk 06:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar navigational lists were deleted in the past. As to WP:NOTDUP, doesn't this just make one page redundant if you have two doing the same thing? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Timothy. Navigational lists are useful and do not need to pass NLIST. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:22, 6 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!} 06:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mastrogiorgio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor whose career has been a string of tiny roles and insignificant voice acting gigs. Fails WP:BIO. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Starring roles in My Italy Story, Rocky the Musical, and Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. The reviews for My Italy Story seem to be only ones that mention his performance (Hartford Courant review the only one that isn't a permanent dead link: [2]). --Mika1h (talk) 13:25, 22 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 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBIO, I don't see any sources indicating significant coverage. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crackhead Barney[edit]

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

Subject of biography has low encyclopedic value and fails general notability guidelines with only a handful of sources and a social networking video channel. AfdBarney (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Little of the nomination statement is relevant to our notability guidelines. The subject passes the basic criteria for a person to be notable (significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject) with profiles in Paper Mag, Inverse, The Independent, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the basic sources identify crackhead barney by name, in fact, she is completely anonymous to the public at large. At a minimum, these sources need to identify her to be considered reliable. Most of these sources are primary sources not secondary, or anonymous posts to youtube. One of the sources you posted The Independent, raises WP:BLP concerns relative to Alec Baldwin and his right to privacy after she followed him into a restaurant onto private property and harassed him while he was purchasing a cup of coffee. AfdBarney (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing enough to satisfy WP:BIO. In addition to what's already in the article, The Root, the Independent, NME (both reporting on the Piers Morgan appearance), Hyperallergic covering a performance, interview magazine, Vice video, the Independent again (via Yahoo -- quick search didn't return the original), etc. But even if it were borderline, I'm not going to !vote delete in a nom by a user whose account was created just for that purpose. PS: whether sources identify her by her real name is 100% irrelevant to notability or reliability (which are explained at WP:N and WP:RS). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that she has enough notability to be here on Wikipedia. Once this article acquires more than five cited sources, some of which can include what @Rhododendrites: brought up, then the article can increase its credibility and relevance. I would like for this article to mention that Crackhead Barney was on a Savanah Hernandez video, if there is notable coverage for such. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:05, 4 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. Star Mississippi 01:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhardt Erwee[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. Pretty much all trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair amount of coverage, but not sure any of it suggests a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:01, 5 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. Star Mississippi 01:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hwang Myong-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, No sources. Samoht27 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources, fails WP:GNG, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:35, 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. Star Mississippi 01:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choe Mi-gyong[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up were trivial mentions (1, 2, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:35, 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 speedy delete‎. Copyright-violating (G12) recreation (G4) by a sockpuppet (G5) of an unambiguously promotional (G11) article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milad (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly a vanity article. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5, see SPI and history of Al Hasan Milad. Wikishovel (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4, G5, and G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebra Yen[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Taiwan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. There is a passing mention here in The Washington Post, which says, "ICE SKATING EXHIBITION Friday 6:30 to 7. Champion ice skater Sebra Yen performs. Reston Town Center Pavilion, 1818 Discovery St., Reston. 703-709-6300. Free."
Sebra Yen (simplified Chinese: 颜少博; traditional Chinese: 顔少博; pinyin: Yán Shǎobó) does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:47, 6 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 C418. History is preserved should there be a desire to merge Star Mississippi 01:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased third Minecraft album[edit]

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

Proposing a draftify or merge to C418 as an alternative to deletion. Unfortunately I think this album is non-notable for several reasons: (1) The album does not 'exist' yet per se; as it has not been announced, and most of the evidence relating to potential release or more information are primary interview sources that are several years old; (2) the album has not reached a point where sourcing provides any concrete details about its content at all, making it fall short of notability guidelines for unreleased material and too soon to justify an article; (3) as such, the article makes inaccurate or speculative assessments about the album, such as assuming the runtime will be >199:40 from a 2017 tweet or implying that the release will contain the songs packaged for the Update Aquatic version; and (4) the article's content is currently more a coalescence of things that Rosenfeld has said or done after the sale of Minecraft to Microsoft, which may be better covered as a section under C418. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Video games. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious WP:NOTCRYSTAL delete, especially since if released it will have a real title and this will be an inappropriate redirect. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a delete here. The album is already brought up on C418's article and most of the sources used here are unrelated to the album itself or are somewhat poor. Has a lot of issues relating to fan speculation that I don't think can be solved since the album appears to be dead. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if this page is to be deleted, than the C418 article needs to be update to include more of the information within this article. WikiWilliard (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:A33B:5CEE:B91F:8E63:A72D:D49 (talk) [reply]

Merge to C418, its too soon to have this article, maybe when the album actually releases, the article can be recreated. Samoht27 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As WP:TOOSOON, the title isn't even a viable redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed 2603:7080:3D00:1890:0:0:0:1424 (talk) 20:43, 4 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 James Goodnight#Wealth and philanthropy. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Scholars Program[edit]

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

Subject is not independently notable (and notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization). ElKevbo (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Science, Engineering, Mathematics, Technology, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just do a WP:BOLD redirect to James_Goodnight#Wealth_and_philanthropy, where this is already mentioned; no need to have an AFD for this obvious ATD. Reywas92^Talk 01:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the redirect ATD proposed by Reywas92. I guess there's some benefit in having it the result of a AfD (now that we're already here) in that it's harder to revert. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Goodnight. Desertarun (talk) 19:21, 5 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 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. In the headlines is not necessarily sufficient to avoid BLP1E, but enough of a case has been made here that the 2021 coverage might get there. Like everything else 10/7 adjacent, a consensus while the situation is ongoing is unlikely. While there is no clear consensus for retention or deletion, this leans slightly toward deletion but this ATD preserves the history should the situation change, and allows for a merger if desired. Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khymani James[edit]

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

Violation of WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think it should probably be merged with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation, and remove some of the info about his highschool bio? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~That sounds reasonable. The high school bio provides context, however. Is there a problem keeping it? 2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Seems like the person should occupy 4-5 sentences of the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation article discussing the leadership (of which this person is clearly a leader) and controversy. That article is protected, but perhaps one of the editors can make that addition in order to facilitate the deletion of this article on James. CampaignZippy (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable for multiple events, some while in high school and others while in college. Both got headlines. This is not a case of BLP1E. I am also not sure how he is a victim. He has made statements and taken actions of his own will that have made him notable. He is not in the news because of the actions of others. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep it. Merging it with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation makes some sense, but you are write about including his high school experiences. They help define him, and will become prescient when he resurfaces, which seems likely. 2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, actually agree, WP:AVOIDVICTIM probably does not apply. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? He is at best a footnote in the Columbia protests. Should every individual who organized an event get a Wikipedia page now? If I organize a potluck this Wednesday should I get my own entry? He is specifically responsible for spreading dangerous rhetoric and incitements and I’m talking about his comments, not the protest. An individual such as this does not warrant nor deserve a page 173.56.60.163 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it "seems likely" that he'll resurface later. Inclusion is based on present notability, not WP:FUTURE. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is dangerous for a person who has openly said he "feels comfortable calling for the death" of any individual to be given fame/notoriety and a platform in the first place. Keeping a webpage up for a domestic terrorist like Khymani James is outright wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.141.24 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not censored. Terrorists exist, and many are notable. For example, I'm guessing you know who Bin Laden is (if you live in the US at least). Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Slugger O'Toole's general points. Uncertain how victimhood could be asserted (& if it is I would strongly disagree with that assertion). The individual is notable. The President of the United States has commented on the individual & they are a leader in a movement gaining global attention.

I don't think it's prudent to rush to delete the page as these events are still in progress. It's not possible to determine whether this individual is basically inconsequential, or whether they will be considered a key contributor when we are all looking back on this. Give it a few months & perhaps that will become more clear. Dlobr (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it’s clear in a few months then that’s when you give him a page. Until then the president commented on him because he said vile, evil things about people and organized a protest. Not everyone who organizes something warrants a page, ESPECIALLY such a vitriolic and hateful individual 173.56.60.163 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that if the page gets deleted at this point, that decision will be forever cited as the rationale for why the page should never exist, in spite of the continued notoriety. The cat is out of the bag already.

Remember that this discussion is about whether the individual is notable enough to have a page at all; this is *not* a discussion about what content inside that page is deemed hurtful or impertinent. Dlobr (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not an intrinsic and immutable property. This discussion is about whether the individual is presently notable; we can leave the question of WP:FUTURE notability to the future. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has been paid $38,000 to damage the education of other students. His life goal is to be on congress. He wants all white people dead. He says his current life goal is to physically kill people. The voters have the right to know who they will be voting for even if it would be 10 years in the future. Employers have the right to know who they are hiring. Keep the article for the safety and well being of the rest of society. Actions have consequences. This article stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.44.251 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. The movement is noteworthy but the subject's notability does not seem to warrant a standalone article. This a mostly leaderless movement that would be happening with or without the subject's involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pop music would be happening without Taylor Swift & the sun will rise tomorrow morning even if I'm not awake to observe it. Dlobr (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a crystal clear WP:BLP1E to me. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There is significant coverage of him from 2021, including in depth profiles by the Boston Globe and the Bay State Banner. Do those not count? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bay State Banner looks to be an interview which doesn't count. I don't see the Globe article. He very clearly wouldn't otherwise be eligible for an article apart from this incident - very clearly being covered for this single event. He's likely to remain low profile, and he did not have a substantial role in the overall event. SportingFlyer T·C 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I'm not sure why a Q&A wouldn't count, but this is a 1,800+ word profile of him in the Globe from 2021. It covers everything from his childhood to his confrontational style on the Boston School Committee to why he resigned from the Advisory Board and more. It also has multiple links to other news stories about him. That is significant coverage about multiple events. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't have been Wiki-notable for that article. It's painfully obvious this is a BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. He absolutely wouldn't. But the Globe profile is from 2021, three years before the current events at Columbia. So is much of the other coverage of him. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~This guy should not have the satisfaction of having a Wikipedia page 2600:1700:9857:70C0:B9A4:731D:B3D5:9D8A (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed, delete, this is single-event notoriety and belongs as a section within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupation.~~

~~In fact this incident is already described therein, under "Allegations of antisemitism". Marcworld (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge into the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation page. Topjur01 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, delete or merge. Non-notable and poorly sourced.CommonSentiments (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommonSentiments: Poorly sourced? The sources include The Boston Globe, CNN, The Hill, and The New York Times. What better sources would you like to be seeing? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say delete. It does not seem he has much individual note. A newsworthy (but not long term-significant) instance of bigoted remarks and involvement in a movement that is itself notable does not strike me as enough. SecretName101 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single notable event to his name with limited media coverage. unless more comes out related him that generates extensive coverage, no reason he can't just be covered under the protest page Claire 26 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Ephun (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is currently written like a hitpiece and violates BLP. The student isn't notable at the moment. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For reasons above. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'd prefer more in-depth biographical coverage, but given that there are sources from 2021, BLP1E doesn't really apply. Don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies either. Will we be hearing about them in a year from now? Two years? Really not sure, and we can't really know yet, so I can definitely see the case for merging with an article on the protests, but the previous coverage pushes this just over the line for me. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the WP:NOTNEWS arguments do have some ground, but at the same time there seems to be enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see WP:AVOIDVICTIM as a significant concern here, but the case via WP:BLP1E seems clear. I suppose one could argue that this is in fact WP:BLP2E or similar, in particular via the Globe human-interest story, but it's not as if James has an activist career that makes him notable rather than the notability of the ongoing event he is associated with. Almost all the useful content can easily go into 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. Jmill1806 (talk) 21:32, 3 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 Anil Prakash Joshi#Filmography. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Son of Himalaya[edit]

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

fails WP:NFILM. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anil Prakash Joshi#Filmography: , where it's mentioned, as ATD. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anil Prakash Joshi#Filmography. RangersRus (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anil_Prakash_Joshi#Filmography: or Keep. There are some articles about the documentary but they don't seem very reliable, one of them is a Wordpress blog. Coop (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anil Prakash Joshi#Filmography.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:09, 5 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 Can. History is thereunder for any merger needed Star Mississippi 02:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can.[edit]

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

the disambiguation does not explain how the term at all relates to the two entries. I could see canada, but a church cantoris? it just doesn't seem right. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Judaism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or just redirect) to the disambiguation page Can instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:SMALLDETAILS may apply, just merge it into Can, and figure out any WP:DABMENTION issues there? --Joy (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Can. Add Cantoris there only after adding a sourced mention of this in the target article. PamD 11:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fell down the rabbit hole: abbreviation is now mentioned and sourced in Cantoris. Have also rejigged the Can dab page to separate out the two abbreviations. PamD 12:28, 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. Star Mississippi 02:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) (Request made at Meta for Big Delete. Star Mississippi 02:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of IMAX venues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is a case of WP:NOTDIR. The most recent AfD closed as no consensus but several of the keep arguments were effectively arguing WP:USEFUL, which is not an appropriate deletion argument. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTDIR. However "useful" it is, the IMAX website that is the source for the vast majority of entries is more so, not to mention more accurate. Mangoe (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. [[WP:NOTDIR]] and doesn't fundamentally improve the article (or wiki as a whole) Lostsandwich (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Orientls (talk) 07:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per my vote in the previous nomination. Having Imax accreditation is no longer considered significant as there are hundreds of venues now that hold it. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per [[WP:NOTDIR]]. At the time of the first two AfDs the two valid arguments for keeping the article were rarity and notability. Since the advent of IMAX Digital and other PLF screens this is no longer the case. Barry Wom (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDIR. Conyo14 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps refocus and rewrite as List of 15/70 IMAX venues or something under a similar title? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and WP:NOTDIR. Also, what about my cinema that claims to be an IMAX venue or the ones of many 'pseudo IMAX VENUES', hence the issues we have with this list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 5 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. Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics): (1) research does not have a significant impact (1 book recently published, no commentary on his work, less than 100 citations. (2) zero awards. (3) Not a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. (4) Nothing to indicate that anyone is discussing this person's work, let alone "academic work has made a significant impact"! (5) Not a distinguished professor, a postdoc and a tutor. (6) did not hold a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post. (7) mentioned once BBC Dorset for playing in a band, which he does not have a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. (8) Not the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area. Checking the basic criteria, the article is compiled from his work (WP:Primary + the section about "Ideas" is pure original research, e.g., "Baker-Hytch contends that mutual epistemic dependence is an essential mechanism for human acquisition of knowledge with no citation. A few sentences later, there is a citation to a book that discusses the topic but not the person or the person's ideas. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. This article satisfies the criteria for notability (academics). (1) His research has the significant impact. He has published numerous papers in various academic journals. In addition, he has the high rate of citations (more than 100 considering the rate of citations of all his papers). You may use Google Scholar carefully. (2) He received the British national award from the Research Councils UK. (3) He is a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly institute. He is a fellow of the University of Oxford and member of the relevent associations at Oxford. (4) Many academic papers discuss his ideas. For example, DEBUNKING ARGUMENTS GAIN LITTLE FROM COGNITIVE SCIENCE OF RELIGION, Divine hiddenness, the demographics of theism, and mutual epistemic dependence: a response to Max Baker-Hytch etc. Again, you may use Google Scholar carefully. If you find it difficult to have the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. (5) He is a distinguished research fellow at the University of Notre Dame and University of Oxford. (6) He is a senior fellow at the University of Oxford. (7) He has a substantial impact outside academia such as popular debates. (8) He reviewed and edited numerous academic journals such as Erkenntnis, Philosophical Papers, Religious Studies etc. Therefore, it is indispensable to keep this article. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you really missing the point here and provided more reasons for the article to be deleted as participating in debates, having citations around few hundreds, and being a postdoctoral research fellowships or a college tutor (that is his own words) is not a reason for article to be included here. see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for details about what the word "substantial" entail FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read carefully the criteria, you will find that academics meeting any one of the criteria, are notable. There is no need to meet all criteria. One is enough. Max Baker-Hytch already satisfies the first criterion and others. Therefore, he meets the notability requirements.

By the way, welcome to debate at Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section regarding mutual epistemic dependence is NOT a pure original research. If you read it carefully, you will find that J. L. Schellenberg's discussion on Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence Divine hiddenness: Part 2 (recent enlargements of the discussion) is cited. If you find yourself unable to get the access to academic journals, the easiest way is to contact your university library if any. Also, Max Baker-Hytch's mutual epistemic dependence is discussed by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. --Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Christianity, England, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Double-digit citation counts on Google Scholar fall below the bar for WP:PROF#C1. Being a Fellow at Oxford is just a teaching job, not the kind of honorary level of membership in a selective society (such as FRS) that would pass #C3. Reviewing for journals and occasionally getting cited in journals are things all academics do; our standards for notability are significantly above that level. Nothing else in the article even resembles a claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Max Baker-Hytch is not only a fellow but a reputable academic and researcher at Oxford. His work is characterised by its depth and relevance, evidenced by its considerable, significant impact within the academic sphere. In addition, his research consistently maintains a high rate of citations, further solidifying the claim to keep his article. As a result, he obviously meets WP:PROF#C1 and the established criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out your comment as you are only allowed a single keep or delete opinion in a deletion discussion. This is not a vote; more keeps and more repetition of the same claims will not help. It is a discussion to clarify how Wikipedia's notability guidelines apply to this case and build concensus on whether Baker-Hytch does or does not meet those guidelines. You might also find WP:BLUDGEON to be helpful advice. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking out my comment is unacceptable and outrageous as it goes against a fair discussion on Wikipedia and the First Amendment.

If I mistakenly make more than one KEEP, please delete the redundant KEEP but leave my comment intact. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk of the First Amendment brings into serious doubt the reliability of your judgment. E Eng 17:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baker-Hytch has written numerous academic papers, resulting in a total citation rate (of all papers) higher than 100. This impressive achievement reflects the impact and significance of his contributions to the academic sphere. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This promotional glurge reads like something an AI would write. [Comment referred to Special:Diff/1221275435 before it was edited to change what I replied to.] —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am a human and not an AI, but I speak in a calm, formal manner. I am elaborating on my argument. Could you stop irrelevant distractions or personal attacks? We should focus on our clarification instead. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100 citations isn't a high bar for a real academic in most fields. I have 88 at the moment, and I've never held a non-clinical faculty appointment. Jclemens (talk) 23:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are not from Oxford. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read carefully, you will find that I said his TOTAL citation rate is higher than 100, not only 100 but significantly higher than that. The total citation rate and discussions on all his papers are obviously above one thousand. You may use Google Scholar to search all his papers and relevance discussions. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks WP:TOOSOON for this 2014 PhD. Citations are far short of WP:NPROF, even in a low citation field. I don't see reviews of the one book for WP:NAUTHOR, and it would likely be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Little sign of other notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that you have only considered his DPhil thesis and have neglected many papers written by him. The total citation rate and discussions of all his papers are higher than hundreds or thousands (see Google Scholar). Therefore, there is no doubt that he meets the WP notability criteria. Pesclinomenosomlos (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically address the citation record above. I have examined the publication and citation record, and see nothing that is not WP:MILL. There is one paper with a good number of citations relative to career stage, and not much else. As I say, WP:TOOSOON (at best). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Pesclinomenosomlos has apparently been canvassing this AfD to multiple user talk pages [3] [4] [5] and has been blocked as a result. Pesclinomenosomlos, once your block expires: do not do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TOOSOON is too generous. I see no evidence of coverage, let alone significant coverage. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (if I'm allowed to !vote in these circumstances), there seems no reason to keep this article. I've no idea why I might have been canvassed to help keep the article, as I've not come across either editor or article subject; but since Pesclinomenosomlos has been indeffed, the matter is purely, er, philosophical. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Max Baker-Hytch has the extensive Authority Control Databases. He is likely to have the potential to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
I noticed that Max Baker-Hytch is being discussed by many high profile academic journals, encyclopaedias and websites. For instance, IEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press and Research by the University of Birmingham.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.127.168.31 (talk) struck comments of IP, now blocked for block evasion
The Cambridge and Birmingham papers are the same paper. Are there any other sources? IEP and SEP mentions are good but quite brief. Shapeyness (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that the subject stands out from the field. The IEP and SEP mentions, for example, are entirely unremarkable; a couple brief statements to the effect that an academic wrote a thing are not a suitable basis for an encyclopedia article. The text is heavily promotional, with boastful claims unsupported by the sources (e.g., His thesis [...] is considered a phenomenal contribution to the field). The ending line of the intro, saying that He also proactively defends Christianity [...] on social media, is either a truly pathetic angling for significance or damnation by faint praise. To delete will be a kindness. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclusion in IEP and SEP articles is not nothing as those pages often detail only the more important contributions in a specific debate, but they are brief mentions and in a very niche subject matter. The same mostly goes for this Philosophy Compass article here doi:10.1111/phc3.12413. It seems the subject of the article is making some important contributions to a niche area of phil of religion but not really enough substantive analysis in RSes to support an article - WP:TOOSOON. Shapeyness (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:Too soon as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete -- per Too Soon. The citation numbers are almost enough for philosophy; it's a field where automated tools are very poor at picking up citation counts. But institutional position (tutorial fellow is not senior lecturer or professor) and lack of major awards says come back in 5-10 years. I'm generally a bit sad to delete articles that I'm pretty sure will legitimately come back w/ a clear notability in a few years, but this is sufficiently self-promoting that it'll probably be better to start again from scratch if that happens. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It really is way too soon for a page on this subject - does not yet meet the guidelines as per WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Iacopelli[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Michigan. Joeykai (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: American Hockey League player - you don't get much higher than that within ice hockey. Probably the third best league in the world. The nomination is not the third best in the world, though, it consists of a single word (plus one capital-letter abbreviation) which doesn't cast any light on the state of the article or its sourcing. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am finding coverage, as might be expected for a USHL First Team All Star, even if his pro career hasn't amounted to much. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlendog. The Kip 17:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per expansion, and per the nomination rationale, which is unfulfilling to put it that way. Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rlendog, expanding, and doesn't seem to fail GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now it's been expanded easily shows hey pass WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 13:01, 4 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. Star Mississippi 02:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medium-power talker[edit]

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

Another WP:DICTDEF from Wikipedia:Federal Standard 1037C terms with zero usage outside of dictionaries. I assume a "talker" refers to a loudspeaker or similar device, but I can't find much info about it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total WP:DICTDEF with only one source, a military standards document (primary). Nothing else found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef. Desertarun (talk) 19:13, 5 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 Tomasz Kamusella as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalisms Across the Globe[edit]

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

There is very little to indicate that this book series is notable. While individual books and authors might be notable (as shown by reviews, citations, and scholarly coverage), there is nothing to indicate that this is notable as a "book series". This stands in contrast to for example The Cambridge History of the British Empire, which is covered by RS as a notable book series. Thenightaway (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or as anATD redirect to series editor Tomasz Kamusella. AFAIK the consensus at WP:NBOOK was that book series that are written as a series did not need series-wide coverage if the individual books were notable (and in fact it may be better to cover them as a series by default). However this appears to be that type of publisher monograph series where the individual books don't form a cohesive whole (which did not count for that), so it would need series wide coverage, which does not seem to exist. At least a few of the individual books are likely notable though but there's not really any useful content on them here anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a series of academic journals/volumes, not a series of books. The four refs don't support notability. Desertarun (talk) 18:57, 5 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. Star Mississippi 02:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Campeonato Brasileiro Série A broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Brazil. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this topic meets the guidelines. C 679 09:47, 5 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 speedy delete. Deleted by Hey man im josh: (WP:G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Cartoons2022) in violation of ban or block.) (non-admin closure)‎ AusLondonder (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 UK Independence Party leadership election[edit]

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

Lacking coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. This is a very minor party with no elected representatives and only a couple of thousand members. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, leaning on keep. WP:TOOSOON. Give it a bit more time and more sources and we can probably keep it. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is an argument for why an article should not exist... AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, decidedly minor political event. TOOSOON applies to articles and not to nominations that come "too soon". The event is currently covered with two sentences in the UKIP article, and may be expanded to 9-10 sentences there. Geschichte (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable, no reason to warrant its own article, any more than for leadership elections of the continuing SDP. Anything on this page can by covered on the UKIP page. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Bhathal[edit]

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

BLP of a perennial candidate with no notability outside of her repeated unsuccessful candidacies. The sources presented do not demonstrate in-depth coverage of her as a person, focusing on her various campaigns and a dispute with her party. After politics she appears to be a low-profile individual and this BLP amounts to a Pseudo-biography - "Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? In the second case, it is likely that the event or organization is notable, but that the individual is not." AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates, they have to be notable for activities/achievements outside running in elections. LibStar (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for several reasons. She didn’t meet SIGCOV in the past, but does now in my judgement. There are a number of articles specifically discussing her- including several not yet featured on the article. See here:

Since the last deletion, she has also been the subject of a 2019 documentary, since shown at a number of film festivals. Just one example: https://cdocff.com.au/the-candidate/

https://amp.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/greens-candidate-horror-show-comes-to-the-big-screen-20190708-p525ae.html

it won an award at a film festival too

https://fan-force.com/films/the-candidate/

(The first screening of the documentary got its own article as a fun side note https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/strewth/green-alight/news-story/34f16b93c3f2d45b59addbf7c21a6053?amp)

I think the previous deletion was 100% correct- but in my opinion, this new content brings her up to notability. GraziePrego (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more to my vote

I understand the deletion arguments if all the coverage about her was solely about the 2018 by-election, but that isn't the case. The SBS articles (two from 2016, one from 2017) are about her at a previous federal election, and they do indeed provide "in-depth coverage of her as a person", describing her religion and the history of her father and grandfather. All of these articles are coverage from before the 2018 by-election. She's not just notable for a single event, she has notability through coverage over years.

Also, I would love clarification as to why Amelia Hamer is notable enough to keep, but this article isn't- Hamer is a candidate at an election that hasn't even been called yet. Bhathal has significantly more coverage. Both are notable enough to keep.

GraziePrego (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While other stuff exists is not the best argument to make at AfD, I have nominated Amelia Hamer for deletion as she is not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2018 Batman by-election - the articles that GraziePrego posted were published in 2016 and 2017, nearly in the height of her political activity. Most coverage I can find is concerning controversies of the by-election, which is also the focus of the documentary. I didn't find any coverage of her after she quit her party in 2019 at all, other than on her own website. This is effectively a WP:BLP1E, and I don't think there's any more to write about here than what is already covered in the by-election article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it's been made evident that this article passes the WP:GNG. I don't agree that this article is a WP:BLP1E; she has been separately notable in the sources based on her previous candidacies; her final candidacy for the Greens; the allegations made surrounding her candidacy and the review that was undertaken by the Greens; her not seeking re-election; her leaving the Greens; and the documentary. To me, the coverage is about separate things. Although it could definitely be argued that coverage of the documentary is about the documentary and not her, given the documentary is not necessarily notable, it makes sense for it to be included in this article. Separately from the GNG, this individual was at the centre of a national media story with persistent coverage for multiple years. She does not have to continue making the news in perpetuity to be considered notable. J2m5 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject comfortably meets WP:GNG. The argument stated above that "we almost never create articles for unsuccessful political candidates" is unsupported by Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. We accept articles as worthy of inclusion on the basis of their subject's notability. A political candidate could be chronically failing to get elected but be notable all the same, e.g. Ralph Nader who has never been elected U.S. president. Extensive and repeated reports and articles in major Australian media testify to subject's notability. She's been in the news for more than a decade. -The Gnome (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This person has run for Australian parliament which doesn't have the same international standing as running for US president. In any case WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was originally closed but was reverted following talk page message. Closing admin, can you please give me some advice and how this will be closed? Toadette^Edit! 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Unfortunately, the subject of this article does not meet notability outside of her candidacy. (WP:NPOL). I have thought quite hard over the past couple of weeks on what my !vote would be on this AfD and have come to this decision because I think it is important for a consistent policy as during an election cycle, most candidates will receive some level of press attention, and to have every single candidate to ever run for an election would ultimately be to the detriment of Wikipedia. So taking into account the sources present (and on Google) that are outside her candidacy and inside her candidacy (to an extent) I don't think that notability is established through GNG or NPOL. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- found this below [6],[7],

[8] ,[9],[10]. Possibly a WP:BASIC pass. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 19:34, 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. Star Mississippi 15:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Madras[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. The only sourced entry has its own page with a very questionable notability. Geschichte (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad also applies here; very similar article with the same issues. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page does not meet notability guidelines WP:FAILN. RangersRus (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is based on a newspaper feature that mentioned a whopping six songs, and apparently someone thought that was interesting enough to type a bare list of titles into Wikipedia. But it is not a viable list of encyclopedic items per WP:NLIST, and it is just plain uninformative for any reader who happens to come across it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails notability Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:39, 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. Star Mississippi 02:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Dhaka[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad also applies here; very similar article with the same issues. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In complete agreement with the nominator and previous voter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 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. Star Mississippi 15:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Baitussalam[edit]

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

Mostly sourced to dubious sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Education, Schools, Religion, Islam, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm glad to hear your acknowledgment of GVS as a dubious source. I fully agree that this promotional page should be removed, as it clearly fails to meet WP:N. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not acknowledge no such thing (I said mostly dubious), even if GVS is a valid source, it still does not meet notability criteria. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the way it's written, this madrassa seems to be a one man show - clearly promotional.

Crosji (talk) 04:41, 4 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. Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 PSL Reserve League[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Also per wp:not regarding a stats only article.topic. A stats only article with data on a season of a reserve league. Per SNG these are not presumed notable and require GNG sourcing. Does not have and highly unlikely to exist. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reserve league not presumed notable and with no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like most reserve leagues in the world, there isn't enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 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 speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volker Mosblech[edit]

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

A member of the 18th Bundestag. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO and lacks any independent nongovernment sources. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Germany. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL presumes notability for members of national legislatures. There's quite a bit of coverage in the German media of his death. AusLondonder (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this proposal is meaningless. per WP:NPOL. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:NPOL and there has been coverage in the German media of his death. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only the nominator can "withdraw" as such, but there is (and should not be) absolutely no chance of this getting deleted. Geschichte (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am the original nominator. I just got my username changed per WP:RENAME, while the AfD was active. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:53, 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. Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of alternative names for oceans[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neocorelight (Talk) 15:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete like most exonym lists. An article about different etymologies of names for the respective oceans could be interesting. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boudewijn de Geer[edit]

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

Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once again (see also the AfD about his son), this is a poor nomination where there has clearly been no attempt to search for sources. A very quick Google search brings up so many sources, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 (I could go on and on). Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a little disingenuous to claim notability is clearly established based on a number of references which primarily relate to his recent death, rather than asserting a notable playing career. I suspect you would have been more challenged to find that quantity quickly prior to the last day or so. That said, multiple posthumous coverage may point to someone who was notable, otherwise why would multiple outlets report it, although I'm not quite as comfortable searching historic non-English media to know this confidently. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His recent death is making it hard to find other sources, but his death has been covered in seemingly every major Dutch newspaper, there were sources present before his death, and this is somebody who was a professional player in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Australia, who later also became a coach. As I said - clearly notable, and this and the simultaneous AFD about his son (another notable sports figure) shows a lack of knowledge or effort from the nominator. WP:BEFORE was obviously not followed. Giant Snowman 13:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting you're wrong about notability, I just felt you could have offered some context when declaring that "google search brings up so many sources", as there is a very obvious reason that's now the case. But like I said before, usually multiple media outlets reporting the death of a sportsperson would indicate that person is notable. In my opinion, you can't reasonably assert this as being clear or obvious, as you did, just from death news reports within 48hrs of said passing. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found and added multiple pre-death sources. As I said - the nominator patently did not attempt any form of search before rushing to AFD. Giant Snowman 15:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles for every other minor, forgettable sports thick. Why not this one? Kelisi (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is not a reason to keep an article. Giant Snowman 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn, all !votes to keep (non-admin closure) Polygnotus (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike de Geer[edit]

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

A Dutch professional footballer. Page fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly no attempt at a BEFORE, giving a very quick Google for this guy brings up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Clearly a notable figure. Giant Snowman 12:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:BASIC for me on sources added by GS. Govvy (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unclear why this article was nominated. Neither fails SPORTCRIT or the GNG. The nomination does fail NEXIST and BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: This nomination was meaningless. The page does pass WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT and research proves his notability. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 17:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ineligible, yes, but no one is arguing for retention Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Vitale[edit]

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

Highly promotional piece written by a UPE. PROD declined. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Italy. UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the subject has had an ordinary career, with no indication of encyclopedic notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:46, 21 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 12:16, 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. ✗plicit 01:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KELM-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a remnant of the looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2010 — the only known/discussed programming was a full-time national service. There's probably little-to-no significant coverage here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 27 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 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wcquidditch. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Antigua and Barbuda, London[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources; sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Antigua and Barbuda. AusLondonder (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, which contains most of the same information so is more helpful to readers than deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is deleting better than redirecting? Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Japan–United Kingdom relations. Star Mississippi 14:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of the United Kingdom, Osaka[edit]

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

Consular office lacking sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge'. There is plenty of encyclopaedic information in this article that shouldn't be just thrown away. If additional secondary sources can't be found (remember some are likely to be in Japanese and/or predate Google) then it should be merged to a broader article, maybe Japan-United Kingdom relations. Thryduulf (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:ORG. Any relevant material should be in Japan–United Kingdom relations. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Japan–United Kingdom relations. Not enough notability for a full page. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 12:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations. as a viable ATD since it's unlikely any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 14:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Pristina[edit]

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

Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources specifically about the embassy. Sources are primary sources, deprecated sources and Twitter. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Kosovo, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 07:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kosovo-United Kingdom relations, which I'm surprised doesn't contain this useful information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Missouri#LPTV stations. as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 14:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRFT-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Missouri#LPTV stations: I suppose it's possible that this 32-year-and-counting station has garnered some of the now-required significant coverage, but a station that mainly carries minor digital subchannel networks, and holds no area cable coverage and is largely only known to have carried full-time national services tends not to get that much (if any) coverage. This is another remnant of the looser "standards" of 2006 and no longer requires anything more than an ((R to list entry)) as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 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. Star Mississippi 14:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football broadcast in India[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The most fancrufty list to appeal to the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are announcements and does not help to assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: There are some sources at the article AusLondonder (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing significant that I can see... Giant Snowman 16:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are sources. What do they do other than indicate those are evidences they are providing coverages to sports leagues? Are they helping with the subject's notability? SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a TV guide for viewers. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found [11].Esolo5002 (talk) 18:46, 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. Star Mississippi 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon (fictional ship)[edit]

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

Only sourced to the novel itself and the article is only plot with no real-world commentary, besides from its comparison to RMS Queen Mary. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Film. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like this is not independently notable, but please ping me if good sources are identified. Maybe some of the content could be added to The Poseidon Adventure (novel), although that article is currently only sourced to the book itself. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the commonality between the stories varies wildly so this seems relevant Sansbarry (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? Neocorelight (Talk) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only content present is simply brief plot summaries for the book and each of its adaptations, all of which are already covered better at each of their respective pages. Even that extremely small bit of "real-world" information regarding the production of the first movie is already included in that film's article. I am not really finding anything covering the fictional ship as a topic on its own where it would make sense to have a separate article on it, rather than just covering the relevant plot elements on each of the respective articles. I don't really see this as a likely search term at all, but if people would prefer a redirect, I would suggest having the target be the Poseidon (disambiguation) page, where the book and all of its adaptations are already listed. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. This doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply plotcruft and nothing more. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 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. Star Mississippi 02:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atta Soja[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NBOX or GNG. Sources are database entries, press release with the same images, paid articles posted without bylines etc., Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Uganda. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO, or any other notability criteria. Wanting to be a champion is hardly unique or notable and notability isn't inherited from your coach or who you train with. He's not even mentioned in some of the references. Papaursa (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 5 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. Absent someone wanting to work on it, draftification isn't going to help. If someone is, I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 14:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Kaul (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one role as lead role, rest are all trivial roles thereby clearly failing WP:GNG. Imsaneikigai (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: As per Nom. Pri2000 (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the views of Nominator. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La alta escuela[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show they meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have found 4 citations and added to the article, including one from Vice. The reliability of VICE is questionable per WP:RSP, however, I believe that would not apply to entertainment and music articles. In addition, the band may meet criteria #7 of WP:MUSICBIO, which says "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city."RolandSimon (talk) 03:21, 20 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) 11:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarang Jain[edit]

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

Hard to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting GNG and please read WP:BEFORE Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bakhtar40, as a fairly inexperienced editor (131 edits), you need to read WP:BEFORE, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources". It is not just the sources actually used in the article that count. A simple Google search for Tarang Jain Varroc (he owns 86%) gives us:

https://www.forbes.com/profile/tarang-jain/?sh=5a0e545f2676

https://www.forbesindia.com/article/big-bet/twinwin-venture-how-tarang-jain-built-a-global-automotive-business/49915/1

https://www.forbesindia.com/article/leaderhip-awards-2013/tarang-jain-taking-risks-to-derisk-varroc/36383/1

https://www.autocarpro.in/feature/varroc-tarang-jain-autocar-professional-3428

https://www.themachinist.in/interviews/2333/investments-help-companies-stay-competitive

https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/companies/varroc-engineering-striving-for-double-digit-margin-by-end-of-fy24-says-cmd-17046041.htm

There are plenty more. And who knows what else in Hindi, etc? Edwardx (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Very reliable sources like forbes have enough coverage on the well known billionaire from India. Google search will also display results with many reliable sources on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on presented citations above this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Hkkingg (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. but I'd argue some verification of its existence should happen before this is REFUNDed Star Mississippi 14:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Figa[edit]

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

I could find references to this place as a villa estate, not clear if fit meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. I did not find evidence of notable archaeology. Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Geography, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reference to a site by this name in Corsica, and am curious where it came from originally. @Ser Amantio di Nicolao: your initial edit summary suggests that you might have been working from a list or database? – Joe (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Co and Fr articles don't list any sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 14:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Published Reporter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Some of the references don't even mention the subject and the rest are either unreliable or not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Delaware. CNMall41 (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The publication has gone through significant changes from what I know and for the record, I'm going to second the suggestion for deletion. Fishnagles (talk) 01:18, 15 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!} 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 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 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroLeague broadcasters[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication WP:LISTN is met: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NLIST. Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming. This list doesn't seem relevant. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 15 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!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these article seem to me like the lists of airline destinations that often appear at AfD. Sourced to primary sources or routine announcements, essentially directories, and unclear whether they are updated regularly enough even to be useful as directories. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Scotland[edit]

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

This article about a digital radio multiplex has been tagged for notability since 2012 and I'm unable to find much in the way of SIGCOV to assert notability - just articles about stations opening and closing on the multiplex signal, which are primarily about the stations and not the multiplex. There is !precedent for redirecting these articles to the article for their parent company [12]. Most of this article consists of unsourced WP:OR about stations being added, deleted and moved around on various digital radio multiplexes. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and Scotland. Flip Format (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No issue with notability, and the article contains a history, stations broadcast, transmitter information and references. Rillington (talk) 00:19, 3 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. Star Mississippi 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Kwasi Debrah[edit]

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

The subject is not notable, WP:REFBOMB with sources written by the subject or the company he works for, 95% of the sources emanated from JoyNews where he works. As seen [here] and [here, ]. There are even cases where the sources directly came from the subject as seen [here]. Apart from that, most of the sources are not Reliable and are not Independent Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Journalism, Poetry, and Ghana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these anomalies are corrected Gyanford (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the article and checked some of the refs. He doesn't appear to have led a notable life, we're even below 1E. Desertarun (talk) 12:18, 5 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 Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Seattle[edit]

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

Consular office that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. Lacking in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Sources at the article are mostly irrelevant, such as an opinion piece in a newspaper about Taiwan and China and a transcript of President Carter's address about recognition of China. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Taiwan, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete nothing to suggest notability for this topic. Mccapra (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions, where the subject is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a defacto consulate which is less notable than an embassy. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States#Consular districts by missions per Cunard as WP:ATD. Redirects are cheap. Jumpytoo Talk 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard a# ATD. Mccapra (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting a redirect as an alternative to deletion! Cunard (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCR-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: The article at least claims that there at least was some local programming (a newscast), but that statement has been there since the article's creation, and the only real "expansion" since then has been to the usual solely-database-sourced permastub of the type that is finally being rejected in this topic area. Maybe there's more significant coverage out there, but by and large this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006 that no longer warrants anything more than an ((R to list entry)) as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHFL-CD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: It isn't quite the type of all-national programming service so many LPTVs are, but I'm not convinced this likely-run-of-the-mill religious station has much significant coverage either. Likely a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sindh Premier League. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sindh Premier League[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT. The tournament doesn't have official status with no lasting effect. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Robo^Cric Let's chat 05:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robo^Cric Let's chat 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage for separate season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sindh Premier League Not enough coverage on its own.Hkkingg (talk) 15:50, 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 South African wireless community networks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretoria Wireless Users Group[edit]

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

I was unable to find any mention of this organization anywhere, hence seems to fail WP:ORGCRIT. Virtually all the news about this organization comes from 'mybroadband.co.za', a rather niche trade publication focused on broadband which does not appear in the searches. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and South Africa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South African wireless community networks as ATD. There is a plausible claim of notability in the article but I can’t find sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South African wireless community networks: Per ATD. Can be expanded in future if needed from the history preserved under redirect. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:39, 5 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!} 06:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arboricultural Association[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. A search does not reveal any non-trivial coverage of the subject. The only source in the article is primary (the organization's website). XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Biology. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its journal Arboricultural Journal: International Journal of Urban Forestry (formerly Arboricultural Association Journal) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q96326792 is indexed in Scopus. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep when you are the authoritative body in a niche sector there’s a bit of a notability conundrum - all the learned and professional papers are published by you, all the spokespeople are on your board, and pretty much everything connected with the topic is associated with you in some way. Nevertheless I find 1, multiple references in Horticulture Week, and they are the publishers of the scholarly journal of their discipline. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 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 Propaganda in China#Terminology. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xuanchuan[edit]

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

I don't see the need for this article to stand alone, the current article could well be merged back into propaganda in China in several parts, some of which could be split out and put into Wiktionary. So I think it would be better to merge into Propaganda in China#Terminology. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and China. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 01:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially if you are the one to do the merger - you are a good and careful editor. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose owing to unnecessary wordiness. Merging Propaganda in China (7726 words) and Xuanchuan (1560 words) would result in 9286 words, which exceeds the Article size guidelines. Keahapana (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keahapana: This is not a major problem, and given that a lot of the content is in fact duplicated and a significant portion of the xuanchuan content is unsourced, it is entirely possible to trim it down to meet the standard. ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 05:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Propaganda in China#Terminology per Tokisaki Kurumi. This is just the Chinese word for "propaganda", and the sources listed are all discussion of propaganda in China rather than the word specifically. We are well served by a breif discussion at Propaganda in China#Terminology and mentions in other relevant articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Propaganda_in_China#Terminology as proposed. This overlaps with that section, and not enough here to make it work doing a fork. There are entire paragraphs in this article that have nothing to do with China or Chinese which can be deleted. Oblivy (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A merger discussion can continue editorially Star Mississippi 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald[edit]

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 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 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would suggest the article should be move to draft space, since she seems to be notable for a particular event but fails WP:GNG. Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be deleted as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13.--Meligirl5 (talk) 14:23, 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. I now see a consensus to delete these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French exonyms[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B-t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T·C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago

That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [13] [14] [15], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T·C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

… I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 20 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, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to be better sourced, but there's plenty of sources available, especially if you search in French. Such as this. Most of the !voters in this discussion are ignoring the fact this can be better sourced, which is equivalent to notability. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Are dictionary entries notable? – That pdf is roughly a French analogue of Toponymy of England, and I would be happy to see analogous articles about various countries, but it is not about exonyms. —Tamfang (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list that violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, same holds for the child articles. It would be absolutely cool to have an article about the topic of French exonyms. Certainly meets GNG, many sources that would explain how French exonyms historically evolved, the phonological challenges when toponym get nativized etc. But this article has nothing, rien about that. It's just an indiscriminate list of toponyms. –Austronesier (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had not noticed the child articles. I would not remove lists of German names for places that were formerly in German territory, but a corresponding French list would be pretty short! —Tamfang (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Agletarang (talk) 09:28, 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. Star Mississippi 14:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BoomCase[edit]

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

Overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance: the article makes a pretty good case for the article to be treated as a flash-in-the-pan media sensation, rather than of encyclopedic notability. Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi Sadads,

I think it is a big stretch to say BoomCase was just a flash-in-the-pan media sensation. Lets start with some of the bigger things.

As the article states BoomCase has been featured in at least 3 published Books. The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan".

Secondly, I would argue It has even transcended into popular culture by being featured in a globally broadcasted main event WWE wrestling match - Brock Lesnar BoomBox by BoomCase | The BoomCase© , being used in commercials - BoomCase in H&R Block Commercial | The BoomCase© , in a popular Bollywood movie, Ae Dil Hai Mushkil , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-in-bollywood-film/ , featured on the Ukraine's #1 travel show in 2015 , https://theboomcase.com/boomcase-featured-on-ukraines-1-travel-show/, and being used for art work on beer cans - https://theboomcase.com/melvin-beer-x-boomcase/ , among many other things. (Blog | The BoomCase©)

There are a lot of things one could include just by looking at their Blog (Blog | The BoomCase©) or press page (https://theboomcase.com/press/) that would counter the flash in the pan idea.

Finally, the BoomCase is still an operating company 14+ years later. Usually, one hit wonders peak and then disappear. Seeing that BoomCase is still around being featured in press, tv and used for architectural projects in multiple countries with their new speaker wall product I can't agree with the labeling of "flash-in-the-pan media sensation". MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out MistaKoko's editing since September 2019 has been virtually exclusively geared towards getting this company's article into mainspace – they almost certainly have a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 14:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I appreciate your thorough perspective Sadads, I respectfully disagree with the characterization of BoomCase as an "overspecialized organization with no lasting public relevance." On the contrary, BoomCase has demonstrated enduring significance and cultural impact in the realm of portable audio technology whether you are familiar with them or not.

Firstly, BoomCase's longevity speaks volumes about its relevance and staying power. Since its inception in 2009, the company has continued to thrive and evolve, expanding its reach and influence both domestically and internationally. This sustained presence contradicts the notion of being a mere "flash-in-the-pan" phenomenon.

Furthermore, BoomCase's contributions extend beyond mere media sensation. The company has been involved in numerous art installations and collaborations, showcasing its innovative approach to design and technology. Its products have been sought after by a diverse clientele, including celebrities and influencers, further underscoring its cultural significance and relevance.

Additionally, BoomCase's impact on popular culture cannot be overlooked. From its presence in mainstream media to its integration into various events and settings, BoomCase has become synonymous with style, innovation, and quality in the portable audio market.

In light of these considerations, I believe that BoomCase warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. I personally hate that a company can exist for this long and have physical impact on communities and still have to fight for a basic Wiki page like they don't exist, they do exist and have accomplished more than most companies. They deserve a page. Mrironmonkey (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs to write your comments is highly disrespectful to other editors. I trust this !vote will be given zero weight. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLM's is going to be inevitable when you suffer from dyslexia, how does Wikipedia plan on functioning in the singularity next year or the next decade if you can't communicate clearly? I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not. It's like being mad I used spellcheck. Address the points I made in the original post, and not something irrelevant to the argument.

I stand by my original point that if you lived in Northern/Southern California and you are in this space you have heard of Boomcase, and they deserve to be recognized in some capacity. Mrironmonkey (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you may be resistant to AI right now, but it's going to be a huge part of our lives whether you like it or not Cut it with this patronising, condescending attitude, you don't have a clue what I think about AI beyond my specific view that it's incredibly rude to generate arguments with the click of a button and expect real humans to invest their own time in debunking them, especially when said arguments have nothing to do with how we actually determine whether an article is warranted. – Teratix ₵ 11:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name-checks some impressive-sounding sources, but they either only discuss the company in passing or seem to be advertorials rather than genuinely independent coverage. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Mrironmonkey is a WP:SPA who has made no other editor to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true at all - please actually look at the sources and read them. Not reading the sources is highly disrespectful to the editors and I trust this vote will be given very little weight. -

Sources discussing the company in more than passing plus interviews -

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

https://web.archive.org/web/20141224233949/http://blog.urbanoutfitters.com/blog/uo_studio_visits_boomcase

Yes some are short but wired or the NYTimes are not running an ad for BoomCase nor are any of the blogs or websites sourced -

Custom Boomboxes Fashioned from Vintage Suitcases | WIRED

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/garden/audio-equipment-shopping-with-jonah-takagi.html

Plus the books -

BoomCaseBookMadetoLast-2.jpg (1600×2314) (wp.com) - https://books.google.com/books?id=NNyjAQAACAAJ

https://library.tcdc.or.th/record/view/b00032508#:~:text=Technology%20%26%20Entertainment-,Boom%20Case,-Argus%20C3

https://i0.wp.com/theboomcase.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/retrodesignBookBoomCaseBraunBoomBox.jpg MistaKoko (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the sources. You hardly expected me to write up individual refutations of 32 individual sources, did you? Instead I summarised their nature.

Look, I'll level with you. Pick the three best sources you've got and I'll write out individual evaluations of them. – Teratix ₵ 08:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete References seems to particularly promotional, many offering product for sale failing WP:SIRS and breaking the Terms of use, or a passing mentions of type that fail WP:CORPDEPTH or the type of PR that are paid placements by the company that fail WP:ORGIND. Either way, the whole thing is a crock and straight up advert that should be G11'd from the get go. It currently fails WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. scope_creep^Talk 06:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that top of that it was declined multiples times from AFC, before being accepted by a editor who is now checkuser blocked. The whole thing is absolute crock. scope_creep^Talk 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are not even reading the sources. How are these passing mentions? What proof do you have that the sources are PR? You cant just make claims when you have no idea what would have caused certain websites to write about a product. Just because a product received significant coverage doesn't make it paid. BoomCase is very small company of 5 or less people that started out by going viral I doubt they had money try to pay all these newspapers, books, and blogs to cover them. Come on now.

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-a-boom-box-its-a-vintage-suitcase-no-its-a-boomcase/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/boomcase-brings-back-the-boombox-using-old-suitcases_n_914933

https://www.gq.com/story/family-ties-and-a-summer-slam-dunk-ambsn-and-boomcase-by-mr-simo

MistaKoko (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These are UPE editors. We can go through the references if need be. scope_creep^Talk 06:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more thorough review of the best sources MistaKoko has identified on their talk page:

CNET: A 400-word article is certainly significant coverage. My concern is it is not independent coverage. The author opens by noting I got in touch with the company's owner, Dominic Odbert, to learn more about his designs – i.e. the article is heavily dependent on Odbert himself for information. My concerns are heightened when I read the second paragraph: Each BoomCase [link to store] is a unique creation, so if you see one on Odbert's Web site that catches your fancy, don't think about it too long, because once it's sold, there's never going to be another one exactly like it. This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs.
The second source is hosted by HuffPost, but scrolling to the bottom reveals it was written for AOL Small Business, which appears to be a form of trade publication focused on entrepreneurs. We have a presumption against using trade publications as evidence for notability. It also has a similar problem to the CNET source where much of its content appears to depend on information from Odbert himself.
California Home Design again has similar problems to CNET where virtually all the content is either Odbert's own quotes or information provided by Odbert, and ends by calling for readers to Check out all that’s happening in BoomCase news on Odbert’s blog [link] and all BoomCases available for sale at his web store. [link]
GQ is an interview with Odbert and his cousin, again with no independent analysis beyond their own responses to the questions.
MELO is again mostly interview content providing no independent analysis beyond Odbert's responses. The little original writing is highly promotional, saying the Odbert brothers are changing the speaker game for good and call each Boomcase ... an extension of its owner's creative spirit. – Teratix ₵ 09:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for taking the time to look closer at some of the sources. While I understand what you are saying, the thing is most articles like this are going to be very similar to this no matter what. Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. You would be hard pressed to find a review or write up on a product that does not include its price. I understand if these articles were about a large speaker company such as JBL or Pioneer and then trying to say these are all paid PR or non independent but being that BoomCase is a very small company its highly doubtful they had anything to do with the articles. It seems to me the viral nature of their story/product helped them receive so much press. There are so many things I Wish to cite from their press page but they are unfortunately from magazines that are not available online. (Press | The BoomCase©)

Also this has now become an argument started by Sadads about a "flash in the pan" sensation to an argument about references. I believe I should have the opportunity to find and improve the sources instead of a complete deletion. I think have shown it is not a flash in the pan by my first reply to Sadads.

There are still the three published books cited that I would like to use to write a better article. But im still not sure how to do this since I cant find the txt online other than a few images from BoomCases press page, but even then its not the full txt.

This is from above but just to show again the books - The first book, Art without waste, was published in 2014, four years after it started gaining media attention. The second book Retro and Vintage Design, also published in 2014, is highlighting their contributions to the design world. The third book, Made to Last published in 2017, goes even further than these books with an in-depth multipage look at what BoomCase has done with design and innovation. If multiple authors are writing about BoomCase 7+ years after its founding, I cant see how it could be considered a "flash in the pan". -

I have asked for help with this but have not gotten any unfortunately. I will keep trying.

Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For (hopefully) more input on the sourcing, which is being strongly questioned as to its contribution to our SIGCOV requirements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many reviews, interviews at about a certain product or company are going to include links to where to buy a product, list prices or write what they think is good or bad about it. Just because it does so doesn't mean its not an independent article. I'm not saying the articles aren't independent because they link to where to buy a BoomCase or list its price. I'm saying they aren't independent because they contain virtually no information or analysis that isn't either (a) directly attributable to Odbert (b) obviously dependent on a narrative provided by Odbert or (c) obvious sales copy. See WP:ORGIND for more about what "independent source" means in the context of companies.

As for the books: Art Without Waste just has pictures of two BoomCases with no information beyond bare captions; Retro and Vintage Design manages a bare six sentences; Made to Last... OK, that one might actually qualify as a decent source. But we need multiple independent sources to meet our notability guidelines. I'll grant you've got one. – Teratix ₵ 07:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through it more - However I think its hard to say all the references are obvious sales copy or dependent on Odbert. I doubt all them contacted BoomCase to write up their articles and again if you are writting about a product there is usually some sort of pitch about buying it or not. Also, Art without waste is 4 images not 2. Retro and Vintage design - It seems that if a large publisher includes you in a book with a two page feature of product that its a bit notable. I have also seen online there is more written about BoomCase in other parts of the Book but its on Instagram and I know that is consider a good place to source...

You also mentioned the Cnet article could be a source...

but You say -... This reads like a sales appeal, not independent analysis. Ditto the last paragraph: Prices range from under $300 to $4,000, but the most popular models cost $500. That sounds very reasonable for hand-crafted, made-in-the-States audio designs. The author IS giving their independent analysis by saying the price sounds reasonable for a made in America audio design. Thats their opinion and analysis. Do you think BoomCase told them to say this or something?

I also translated another article - Clublife Magazine 1.2013 by Clipboard Media - Issuu - 200+ words and seems independent. MistaKoko (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Tera's analysis of the sources, fails WP:NCORP. While secondary coverage of the company in generally reliable sources certainly exists, most of it isn't independent or significant enough. Mooonswimmer 14:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fair comment and "weak delete" and not a mean attack like the first two commentors did initially. This doesn't even include all they wrote on my talk page or the conflict of interest noticeboard... I appreciate it.

I translated this https://issuu.com/clipboardpublishing/docs/clublife_magazine_1_2013/14 but its probably too late now. Hopefully I can keep working on this page somehow and try again later. MistaKoko (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After considering all the arguments and analysis above and the history of this article on Wiki, it does not pass WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 13:12, 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. WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 10:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George John Seaton[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. All the significant sources dealing with the topic are written by the subject. All others simply reference background story and not the subject. Fails WP:GNG . An earlier version was draftified because it lacked any credible claim to notability, so the same authored simply created this new version in mainspace without improving notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Africa, France, England, and South America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - as well as the lack of notability, the whole thing reads like a school essay. Or maybe from a chat-bot. This is highlighted by the following comment in the lede: "This article explores George John Seaton's life as a prisoner, slave, and man. It will include researched documentation as well as information from his personal book, Isle of the Damned, to piece together the story of this man's intriguing life."--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like a school essay because the person who wrote the article, Jeorgiaobrien, is a university student who made it for an assignment. Just putting that out there in case anyone else who comes across this doesn't know. Sadustu Tau (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving the article into the draftspace. As the user above noted, this is part of a student assignment, in which first-year college students are grappling with understanding the differences between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. The article was prematurely moved to the mainspace and correctly flagged—but it can be turned into a feasible Wikipedia article because there is a relevant source base.

Seaton’s notability primarily arises from the extensive reception of his autobiography, which occurred in two waves: 1) initial reception upon publication in the early 1950s, around the time Devil's Island ceased operations as a penal colony, by a largely Anglophone public and 2) the use of his autobiographical account in the contemporary historiography on French Guiana and related topics that reach from the treatment of prisoners across the French Empire to examples of queer sexuality during incarceration. In short, given that there is only a limited number of prisoners’ own accounts from their time in French Guiana (some of which have further been debunked as hoaxes), Seaton’s autobiography has become a standard historical source among scholars—and he, by extension, a model prisoner of sorts.

I have advised the student to make the necessary edits to turn this article into a proper encyclopedic essay, and to restructure it around the significance of his autobiography, which can be properly verified with secondary sources. We would appreciate it if she received the opportunity to make these edits in the draftspace. Outcasts&Outlaws (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as nominator, I have no problem with this being moved back to Draft. I would have done so myself had there not already been a Draft in existnce preventing the new version being draftified. It will therefore need an Admin to do the draftification. However, I or any other editor, will still have be convinced by the sourcing that this person is indeed notable and not simply a self publicist, before accepting it in Mainspace. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as the only !voter, I am also happy with draftification.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of this article. I am continuously working on the article, so it meets the notability requirements. There are no longer any direct quotes from Seaton's autobiography and any wording that may sound like an essay has been removed. Here is a list of secondary sources that speak directly of Seaton and are sourced throughout the article: Negros with Slaves by Jet Magazine, Words of the Week by Jet Magazine, Space in the Tropics by Peter Redfield (University of California Press), and Empire of the Underworld (Harvard University Press). Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been working on improving the article, there are now over 10 new sources that are all secondary sources and relate to George John Seaton. I have implemented many changes including formatting, word choice, and the removal of any primary source quotes. Please review this article once again. If you have more improvements you would like me to make, please visit my talk page. I will be happy to continue to make changes. After reviewing the article, if it meets notability requirements then I would love for this article to no longer be flagged for deletion. I am doing my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines while also sharing a story of a man who should be remembered. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Keep - the changes described above tip the scales (just) in my opinion. I would still like to see the article's tone cleaned up to fix unsupported phrases like "notoriously one of the worst penal colonies of its time", "if imprisonment didn't kill a prisoner, then disease would", etc. and to spend less space discussing Papillon in two different sections. But I think this can be done in place rather that draftifying. --Gronk Oz (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - From a brief look at this article and its references, perhaps it could be retitled Isle of the Damned and be restructured to be about the book/s Isles and Scars - their reviews and reception, use by University of Michigan, comparisons, censorship, etc? It would of course include a potted bio of Seaton. Is there enough for WP:NBOOK? JennyOz (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I will speak with my professor about the suggestion and consider your idea. Best wishes, Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 15:50, 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!} 22:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has basically been rewritten over the past two weeks and we have an unbolded "Keep" from the article creator. I'd like to hear from others, especially the nominator, whether these changes made to the article affect your point of view of what should happen with it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the nominator, I still remain uncertain about notability. As indicated above, I would be content with draftification to allow for improvement. I don't have access to any of the sources added during the recent major revision, but from their context it appears that the content of the book has been used in historical analysis both about the prison and its treatment of prisoners and other topics. Had this article been about the book, this may well have been sufficiet to demonstrate notability, but since , in this case, notability dependends on demonstrating multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject, I cannot be sure that that has been achieved, especially as most of the claims to notability are bundled into a single short paragraph at the end. Those with access to the quoted sources may possibly disagree, in which case I would be content to defer to their better understanding. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your uncertainty about the article's notability but the changes you first requested when you flagged my article for deletion have since been implemented. As for the accessibility of sources, nearly all of these sources come from publications made by recognized universities or from google books, etc. You should not have trouble accessing these sources if you wish to learn more. The only sources you may have trouble retrieving are the sources pulled from my university's archives. However, being that we are a research university, it is possible to access these upon reaching out to the university.

We did in fact leave out any claim that Seaton's book is credible. This is because the book is not being used as a source in the article but is instead just being referenced. My professor and I felt that it was more scholarly to explain how the book has been used in case studies rather than trying to persuade readers that the book is credible.

From your comment, it seems that your biggest issue with the article is the uncertainty that the sources are referencing Seaton himself. Most of these sources do speak directly of Seaton and were published after devil's island was closed in 1953. Seaton gained popularity for surviving the island which led to news coverage of him. These articles are all sourced in the article and as mentioned above they are public access if you wish to find them.

As the nominator, please give specific examples of what you would like changed in order to ensure notability and I will do so. I want to once again emphasize that nearly all of these sources can be accessed by the public and are available online. This can reassure you that subject matter is being reported on directly and not the context surrounding him. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a leaning-towards-a-Delete-!vote contributor: What's with the numerous assignments in academic institutions for students to "create a Wikipedia article"? Since when Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are the same as the criteria for academic papers? Such a practice endangers the objectivity of contributors evaluating the text as worthy of being in the encyclopaedia. I, for one, would perhaps hesitate to !vote for Deletion if that means the student's grading suffers! And we are essentially asked to do a supervising professor's job, when we assess a student's work.

P.S. As it happens, I find the subject lacking in independent notability on the basis of reliable sources. But the issue of academic papers flooding Wikipedia is more important. We should bear in mind this, for instance. -The Gnome (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the creator of this article. As mentioned, I am a university student, and by no means an expert in writing encyclopedias. However, our class carefully trained with a Wikipedia representative from the Wikipedia Education Foundation (a group focused on building articles made by students). As well as help from our professor, who has a PhD in the topic, helped curate and edit our articles to meet Wikipedia standards. Since there has been issues with my particular article being granted publishing rights, she has stepped in to help me tremendously hoping to make this article go live.

Overall, our class is simply trying to share the stories of people who have been othered in history. A few of my sources are pulled from the University Library and Library Archives at Washington University in St. Louis. However, the rest of the sources are all available online and should be accessible to the public. I am unsure why accessing the sources has been an issue. Many of these sources have public access from esteemed Universities and others are published on google books, etc.

The original nomination for deletion was made due to the use of a primary source. This information has since been removed. My professor and I have added multiple new sources that are accessible through online databases and take the place of the primary source. As mentioned by the nominator (User:Velella), there is less emphasis on the book's notability. This was done on purpose, as we felt it was more scholarly to give facts about how the autobiography by Seaton has been used as case studies for prisons and prisoner homosexuality versus trying to make a biased claim that the book is credible. We also thought that including the credibility of the book was irrelevant to the article because there is no source usage of the book in the article any longer.

I would love more feedback for what changes you think this article may need. My class ends very quickly so I am hoping to have an article that is able to go live. Thanks. Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was notable even before the new sources were added. Desertarun (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think notability is established by improvements, and I don't see how the purely autobiographical works could themselves be notable if their subject is not. BD2412 T 03:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of this page, thank you for your vote to keep! Jeorgiaobrien (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Recent sentiment has been pointing towards keeping this article, but with some questions still being discussed regarding notability/sourcing etc. An extra 7 days can't hurt to shore up consensus either way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definately met borderline GNG before, and now even more so per WP:HEYMAN. X (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per HEY. Passes GNG easily now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:33, 5 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 Apostolic Prefecture of Lower Congo. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mission sui iuris of Lunda[edit]

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

I can verify that this administrative unit existed according to official church sources, but that's it. Possibly it could be merged somewhere but I don't see how it is even vaguely notable considering the utter lack of secondary interest. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Apostolic Prefecture of Lower Congo where it is already mentioned. Nothing else to be said about it apparently. Mccapra (talk) 11:57, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King & Maxwell[edit]

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

I was trying to PROD this but they reverted it two times, Since this show is extremely non-notable, i want to delete the Wikipedia page of this show. Agusmagni (talk | contributions) 22:06, 27 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 22:03, 27 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the fourth time in a row the nominator has sent clearly notable TV series with plenty of significant coverage to AfD. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, completely frivolous nomination. The fact that the nominator tried to prod it twice shows unfamiliarity with how things are done here, so grab the opportunity to learn more! Geschichte (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on this TV series and trust the regular commentators to evaluate it more knowledgeably than I would. But I wanted to note that, when I reverted the second prod on procedural grounds, my edit summary explicitly told the nominator that, if they were to take it to an AfD, they should provide "a proper justification of what you tried to do to determine its notability" rather than a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE rationale. They have obviously not done what I suggested. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should delete Agusmagni (talk) 02:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. You need to provide a rationale that explains why you think this article might not meet the specific Wikipedia notability guidelines that would be relevant for it. We're not here to count how many people are for and how many are against, which is the only information I get from your comment. We're here to build an understanding of how this topic does or does not fit into the Wikipedia notability guidelines. Comments that do not do that are likely to be discounted when the discussion is closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid deletion rationale has been advanced. We don't base the judgment call about whether to keep an article about a TV show on whether that show sounds forgettable, but instead, on whether reliable sources exist for it. Here, they do. XOR'easter (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TNT (American TV network) because most of TNT's shows are not notable. Agusmagni (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just assert that. Again, you need to provide a rationale for why it might be true, a rationale grounded in what the word notable means on Wikipedia. XOR'easter (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The show has non-notable people behind it and only has news released before the show. Agusmagni (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is never inherited, so you are still not providing a valid rationale. Honestly, someone should just close all of the AfDs as speedy keep. Rusty4321 ^{talk contribs} 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Channel logos logos Agusmagni (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article for notable show. The nominator has posted "Let's start an edit war" on this page (and then replaced it with nonsense). They are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. The user is basically just here to start edit wars and tag articles for deletion. kpgamingz (rant me) 23:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per others, and to the nom, please don't nominate another article for deletion until you have read the guidelines and policies Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nomination lacks proper justification and seems based on personal opinion. Waqar💬 20:22, 3 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!} 04:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dennis Rodman[edit]

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

Another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate, trivial stats minutiae. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. The basic stats are already at Dennis Rodman § NBA career statistics. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing As most of this page is unsourced, there's no opportunity to merge either.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of the biography. P.S. It's hard enough for the stats people to keep things updated in one centralized place, let alone if every player starts getting a biography page and a stats page. Carrite (talk) 16:07, 4 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. If you believe these articles should be "Kept" then please state this along with your argument instead of making a general "Comment". Comments are ambiguous and don't give a closer a clear idea on where you stand on what should happen with this particular article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Kevin Garnett[edit]

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

This is a WP:NOTSTATS violation, which has also been tagged for verification since 2011. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul.—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, don't need such lists especially said achievements can be placed in the player's own main page in an accolades, or legacy area. Will also copy paste this to the other aforementioned lists. Noorullah (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And for reference, there's recent golf player's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus. Less related but still relevant to the discussion. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOBIG, cited in Nicklaus' case, doesn't apply to Garnett's page.—Bagumba (talk) 06:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. But someone will possibly make the assertion that every single career achievement page (across all sports) should be deleted (already happened in previous AfD discussions). Before they go there, they should consider Nicklaus' AfD result. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Career achievements of sportspeople shows that 18 racing drivers have their own career achievements page. Is WP:TOOBIG the reason why? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles make a little bit more sense in racing sports and golf, which have lots of discrete named events. From a maintenance perspective, they're easier to manage. Many of the achievements listed in NBA articles are cumulative stats and career rankings that are continuously subject to change. Zagalejo (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, trivial statistics. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the bio, which it already does in its main prose and via tables and lists at Kevin Garnett § NBA career statistics and Kevin Garnett § Achievements and records. The rest here fails WP:NOTSTATS: Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of the biography. P.S. It's hard enough for the stats people to keep things updated in one centralized place, let alone if every player starts getting a biography page and a stats page. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 4 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.