< April 04	April 06 >

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

The result was delete‎. The one "keep" opinion does not address the sourcing problems. Sandstein 07:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Lewis (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Oregon. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful short article on a skater who was successful in international junior skating tournaments; her best result was the Youth Olympics. Articles such as Figure skating at the Winter Youth Olympics work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles. Deleting articles such as this one, through an over-zealous application of rules to borderline cases such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass wp:gng Big Money Threepwood (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSKATE and fails WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Uegama[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a cinematographer, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for cinematographers.
The only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, which isn't enough in and of itself -- the notability test for a cinematographer doesn't vest in listing his film and television credits, it vests in showing third-party reliable source media coverage externally validating the significance of his work: coverage about him, evidence that he has won or been nominated for major awards for his work, and on and so forth.
But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, like his IMDb profile and the self-published website of his own employer, with the closest thing to a reliable source being a specialty trade magazine that just links to his name being present on the cover without showing any evidence that he was the subject of any written content inside the magazine — and even if somebody can verify better than I've been able to that he was the subject of an actual article, it would still take more than just one source to get him over WP:GNG anyway.
And even on his IMDb profile, the only awards listed there are regional (Leo) or specialty (Canadian Society of Cinematographers) awards that would be fine to add here if the article were sourced properly, but are not prominent enough to hand him an instant notability freebie without proper sourcing.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage for this individual. Semi-RS, a repost from Mashable via CBS News [1] and that's the best one I could find .I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Provident Association[edit]

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

Article created and continues to be edited by COI editor who removed PROD tag on the basis that "We are in the process of editing this page, but we need the copy to be authorised, which can not be done in the timescale that you have provided, it will be carried out soon,". The organisation lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", as a result failing WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, any coverage here lacks WP:DEPTH.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable business. Bhivuti45 (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~although this company has not received lengthy coverage, t~~They are well documented to have been a pioneer in private health funding in the UK (one of just three players throughout the 1980s and early to mid 1990's). Even if this were to be seen as failing SIGCOV, I think it should be kept on WP:IAR grounds as a company worth documenting due to its early role in shifting cost burdens to the private sector.
@Eastmain added some cites. I have added several more. The article was in a bit of a sorry state, but I tried to add some context about their role in the move to private and top-up insurance. I also did some section reformatting to make the article less scatterbrained although there's an entire section on WPA Healthcare Practice that is unsourced and I don't have a good way of fixing that right now. Oblivy (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, the organisation is lacking "lengthy coverage", not enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the correct policy to apply would be WP:IAR which says that if a policy interferes with improving or maintaining the encyclopedia it should be ignored. Oblivy (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added another two links (one is just to support existence of WPA Protocol as the link is dead and not archived), and improved a link to an offline source by linking to the PDF. Previously I added an article from the Times which is significant coverage of the company.

I also had a look at the links added by @Eastmain two of which are offline. There's actually quite a lot of sourcing for the article although the offline links make it hard to know how lengthy the treatment is. Oblivy (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, IAR isn't a policy that says "Let's keep articles that fail our notability criteria", it says don't let a rule prevent you from improving an article. There's no rule at play here preventing anybody from improving the article or for showing references that shows notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both @Eastmain and I have been improving the article and with the addition of the Times article I don't think there's a basis to say this fails WP:NCORP. I've modified my vote comment accordingly. As for WP:IAR it's a foundational policy, and appears at the top of every notability PAG. It absolutely says that where the application of those policies and guidelines would interfere with the project they should be ignored.Oblivy (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might be "improving" the article, but the first test is whether the topic is notable. You mention you've added the Times article but that article appears to be entirely based on a company announcement just like the other articles carrying the same corporate story such as "Insurance to Secure New Cancer Drugs" by Rececca Smith which appeared in the Evening Standard on the same date and also the article "INSURANCE THAT OFFERS LIFE-SAVING CANCER COVER" by Liz Philips in the Daily Mail, also on the same date (both articles available in WP Library). Also just to say, IAR along with all the other policies and guidelines are generally transcluded into various pages, not disputing that, but that doesn't give it any special hierachial weighting or put it above other policies. Feel free to correct me if I've misread your position, I accept IAR encourages editors to go ahead and improve articles and to do so even if that means breaking some rules - but are you saying that establishing notability doesn't matter so long as an article is being improved, and because AfD "interferes" with article improvement by proposing to delete an article, the AfD process is trumped by IAR and you can keep any old topic regardless of whether they meet notability guidelines or not? If so, that's a ridiculous proposition. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abinadom[edit]

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

Minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources to establish their notability. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 'Nuf said.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. "'Nuf said" is not enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom no independent reliable sources. Based on the article's contents is an extremely minor character. --Cavarrone 14:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DVArchive[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, defunct application for a defunct video recording service. This article was deleted for similar reasons via PROD in October 2006, but was restored two months later with the rationale "Software is widely used and provides an important missing link between PCs and popular ReplayTV", which I don't think hold up. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Technology. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It's a real thing - I vaguely recall it. But we should delete this mess. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd in 2006 so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire 26, what is the reason for your "vote"? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz - Oh sorry, I just voted based on the reasoning provided above. Claire 26 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

California Speaks[edit]

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

Seems like a single event with limited ongoing impact so looks like it might not meet WP:LASTING. The refs appear to be WP:ROUTINE and more than 90% of the page is not sourced and therefore per WP:V could be removed. JMWt (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, and California. JMWt (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, as this appears to have been a collection of forums around the state, rather than a single discrete event. BD2412 T 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, although it does appear to me to be an event on a specific date albeit spread around various venues. JMWt (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable conference. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article suffers from extreme first-hand reporting, and so much shouldn't be kept. Given that this appears to have marginal notability at best, it might be able to be handled by a limited merge to Health care in California#Proposed single-payer healthcare. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a selective Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY (and move to CaliforniaSpeaks). I have nearly finished rewriting the article completely; it's still very much a work in progress but much better than before. Anyway this was not "just a conference" and there has been WP:SUSTAINED coverage of the event in many academic journals subsequently. Most in-depth is Esterling, Fung and Lee (2015), "How Much Disagreement is Good for Democratic Deliberation?", Political Communication 32(4):529–551, which focuses on CaliforniaSpeaks and also happens to be widely cited. I also liked Lee, Caroline W. (2015). Do-It-Yourself Democracy: The Rise of the Public Engagement Industry. Oxford University Press. pp. 182, 204–205, 210. CaliforniaSpeaks even got a sizable footnote in James S. Fishkin's When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford University Press, 2011. And of course there are a ton of newspaper articles like this 2007 one in Fresno Bee. The above just scratches the surface for sourcing and there already are several other good sources if you look at the article now; in any case it's enough to keep the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge I support selective merge to Health care in California#Proposed single-payer healthcare. There are so much fluff and unencyclopedic trivia like "There were more than 440 professionals who volunteered as table facilitators on the day" that should be omitted. It's borderline notability, and short enough that it's best served with merge and redirect. Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider restructuring: Cielquiparle has improved the article to the point at which I'm landing at keep (albeit on the weaker side). I think, however, it would be a much stronger article if the article were reworked/renamed so that its topic were actually on the bill being discussed (which is not named here nor the aftermath well-covered). The start would be expanded from the current background section, the CaliforniaSpeaks consultation process would constitute much of the middle, and the end would feature the bill's passage through the house, financial analysis, and subsequent death in the Senate. (yes, any such decisions can be dealt with at the Talkpage; no, not volunteering) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems a failure of WP:10YT no lasting notability. Simonm223 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, keep. "no lasting notability" makes no sense, Simonm223, given that there was an academic article published about it eight years later. That article already makes it halfway-notable. If the books by Lees-Marshment and Fishkin and Kahn (no preview--thanks Google) indeed discuss the actual subject of the article, then we're easily past GNG, and AGF basically requires that we assume that these books do that. So that's "keep", already. Having said that, stuff like this may add to the background, but it won't add to notability, and "At the end of the event, AmericaSpeaks handed out postcards" really does not add to the encyclopedic quality of the article. Also, no, don't merge or rename this unless the books/academic article suggest that. AmericaSpeaks, as an article, is a promotional piece of crap. Drmies (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This won't get long term coverage, and could probably find a place as a paragraph in a more appropriate article (I don't know which) Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vuyani Maqina[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as coverage is while reasonably extensive, limited to team releases etc. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, aye Claire 26 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The name is mentioned here, though, redirecting in this case doesn't seem much helpful. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Pheiffer[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as there's very little coverage. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divan Uys[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 referee, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as there's no real coverage of the subject at all. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Referees and similar sports officials are not automatically notable. Therefore WP:BLP and WP:SIGCOV apply. I only see two primary sources, and that is not enough. If you find more, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Namibia national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahepisa Tjeriko[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 Namibian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players There's lots of coverage in relation to his 2023 Rugby World Cup selection, but I'm not sure if there's enough for a WP:GNG pass here, suitable redirect here per WP:ATD (preffered to linking to the tournament). @Jevansen: was expanding World Cup articles so may be able to find more. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Son of Godzilla. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumonga[edit]

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

A small article for a rather minor kaiju in the Godzilla series. While Kumonga did have a spider named after it, any other commentary I can find is scattered and weak at best. There doesn't seem to be enough for a full article here. I'd suggest a redirect to Son of Godzilla, Kumonga's main film appearance. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Son of Godzilla, the kaiju's first appearance. Much like the cases of Ebirah and Manda, available sources on the creature pretty much just cover plot and production details of the pieces of media it appeared in, rather than any kind of analysis that demonstrates notability of the monster itself. And to pre-empt the argument that was made on both of those AFDs, while the Japanese Wikipedia article on the creature cites numerous sources, those are also just supporting plot and production details, and are also largely from official Toho sources. The fact that a real life species of spider was named after the kaiju is an interesting bit of trivia, but not enough to base an article around. Rorshacma (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct per Rorhacma's statements. Either reiteration of plot in the film and just WP:Fancruft. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV about this fictional element's reception in the real world. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janus Venter[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. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. There is this but one more source would be nice for a GNG pass, no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Caesar[edit]

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

A rather short article, based around a minor character in the series. I found two book sources that give a good paragraph on him, but nothing more. Every news source is just Screen Rant, and I can't find anything bar the two above, and the few things you can scrape together really aren't enough for a whole article. I'd suggest a redirect to Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla, his debut film and most notable role. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sourcing doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV. Redirect is a valid WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mexia Supermarket[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, fails WP:NEVENT.

Specifically, this is an article about either Mexia Supermarket the business, or about the event of the food there becoming rotten and going off after the power was cut there.

If this is an article about Mexia Supermarket as a business, then its notability is not established as the only sources cited are local newspapers and an ~1 minute-long interview with the guy in charge of the clean-up on an Ancient Aliens-style speculative television program. Local newspapers alone cannot establish the notability of an article per WP:AUD. An interview with the guy in charge of the clean-up is not an independent source and in any event was not significant coverage.

If instead we look at this as an event, there's a clear lack of WP:LASTING coverage or WP:GEOSCOPE. The newspaper coverage was all in local papers and all comes in an approximate four-week period from 13 November 1999 to 9 December 1999, with no coverage at all in reliable, independent sources after that - the story had no WP:PERSISTENCE. As discussed above, the interview is not independent and not in a high quality source, but additionally the real subject of the show it was on was not this event but simply to use it to illustrate what would happen to food stockpiles if humanity suddenly disappeared.

A search on Newspapers.com and other sources failed to turn up anything further covering this business/event. For the avoidance of doubt, Google Maps is not a reliable source.

Ultimately this is just a very run-of-the-mill event common in communities around the world: "local thing smells bad and people complain". FOARP (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Texas. FOARP (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the article's talk page, I, as creator of the page, don't contest its deletion. I was more swept up in just making the thing than actually ascertaining whether it had enough coverage to qualify, which was rather silly given quite how much time I spent actually looking for sources; to clarify, I didn't find any further lasting coverage or initial coverage of the incident. As stated on the talk page, I was at least a little surprised by how little lasting coverage there was beyond that history channel docuseries.

I'd be willing to CSD it under WP:G7. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were some TV news broadcasts about this story at the time, albeit still local. It may have been worth covering on a larger scale but maybe they didn't want the world to focus on the embarrassing incident. Beyond the 2010 appearance in Life After People, this story has gained more traction through a video by Blameitonjorge called 'Disturbing Lost Recordings of Real Events, uploaded Nov 25, 2023. It has as of now 739k views. The lost footage refers to the full unedited tape of the store from the Life After People episode showing rotted food and hazmat workers clearing it away. The News broadcasts are not publicly viewable currently. They are known to exist through news logs. This is a part of the

KXAS-NBC 5 News Collection at the University of North Texas. One may need special clearance and a fee to access the broadcasts. Here is a link showing 2 Mexia stories on the same page. There were some other ones too including the December public meeting held after the store was cleaned.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth439620/m1/93/?q=%22mexia%22 Benmac1089 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like you said, this is still local coverage. It also doesn't get over the fact that this is a very run-of-the-mill story of the kind that regularly appears in local news. I mean, just looking at the news in the UK from the last 12 months for stories in the county of Sussex that are "thing smells bad, locals complain" I see:

...and that's not even reading all the way to the bottom of the first page of results. This is clearly the kind of run-of-the-mill story that local news runs all the time and not something remarkable. FOARP (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The actual circumstances of neglect and miscommunication and of this scale are unusual. I don't know why you are solely focused on one of the five senses. Benmac1089 (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Gujarati[edit]

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, India, and Gujarat. PepperBeast (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. No sources and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Sk1728 (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and RangersRus. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bhojpuri language#Vocabulary. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bhojpuri words of English origin[edit]

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

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, India, and Jharkhand. PepperBeast (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Bhojpuri language: A separate article is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Sk1728 (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. On one hand, there are two apparently good sources. On the other hand, RangersRus makes a good point. A merge per Sk1728 is another option. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marapola Maha Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Disputed draftify, non notable WP:NSCHOOL microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG/WP:NSCHOOL, no significant coverage found in English or Sinhala reliable sources, just a few passing mentions in schools league cricket results, plus a passing mention in 2016 of the school at the end of an article about a national educational programme [2]. Wikishovel (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only found a few passing mentions, insufficient for WP:NSCHOOL. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sri Lanka. Owen× ☎ 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found Lankasara, but it's just a routine notice of COVID-related closure. Not even close to WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any reliable independent sources or references. Dan arndt (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per WP:SNOW;~~ currently totally unreferenced. I only see 3 out of 10 of my factors. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Bearian, while I appreciate that you concur with my deletion rationale, I just wanted to let you know that deletion discussions are entitled to their 7-day discussion unless it can be shown that the article qualifies for one of our WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. If you think it does, you're more than welcome to tag it as such, but otherwise this discussion will probably remain open for the full time slot; in the event someone is able to identify some sources. Typically at AfD, WP:SNOW is only evoked for !keep consensuses. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The nominator is cautioned not to make comments like "Thousands of mentally ill people kill other people across the world every year" which is an unsupported generalization that promotes stereotypes and is pure speculation on your part. If an editor wants to work on this in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Portland train attack[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Thousands of mentally ill people kill other people across the world every year. This just happens to be after a 2017 stabbing, which was notable because of the far-right motivation. Also barely any coverage besides local. Lettlre (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Transportation, United States of America, and Oregon. Lettlre (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: as article creator. Also, it is a developing story, that should have been indicated by the current event template. thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and lack of evidence satisfying WP:NEVENTS, especially WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:LASTING. An unfortunate but ordinary crime with strictly local news coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Similar to an article about the same crime in NYC that was deleted a little while ago. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article, in my opinion, is in compliance with WP:GEOSCOPE as the event has been shared by non-local media (WCAX in Vermont, WLOX in Mississippi). Additionally, the event covered is currently ongoing. -PortlandSaint (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the exact kind of unfortunate and tragic event that WP:EVENTCRIT discusses "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths...) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." The crime is lacking coverage in major national or international sources. Article also has serious violations of WP:BLPCRIME including labelling someone a "perpetrator" and naming them without a conviction. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per AusLondonder and Gene93k. It doesn't look like much more will develop on this beyond a conviction, which is unlikely to effect notability. Jamedeus (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEW, WP:MILL, WP:SOAP. This makes one person notable for one news cycle. Sadly, such attacks are too common to be notable. I agree that something needs to be done to help mentally ill persons from hurting other humans, but we are not the right forum. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Vinheteiro[edit]

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

This article about Vinheteiro fails to meet WP:NMUSIC.

Details about Vinheteiro in the article are not cited in accordance with source, which makes it seem to have reach the requirement of WP:NMUSIC e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro participated in Brazilian programs such as Jornal Nacional (seems to meet criteria 12), while the source 'Jornal Nacional' was about his video of playing of JN's theme song went viral. e.g. the article stated that Vinheteiro performed in China with local musicians (seems to meet criteria 4), yet the source was about his videos' popularity on Chinese online video platform, Bilibili, where he launched online music courses.

If the article is considered as Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability rather than WP:NMUSIC, I doubt its sources are significant enough to meet WP:GNG. --EleniXDD※Talk 07:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Internet, and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The YouTuber has notability, including internationally. [3] [4] Svartner (talk) 05:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. i cannot access the second source provided above, but the first source appears to be an interview and does not contribute to notability. ltb d l (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this source is extremely reliable, one of the top 2 national news outlet in Brazil, with a reach to more than 200 million people. Meets by a long margin criterion 12 of WP:NMUSIC. Contributor892z (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable internationally, and there is comprehensive coverage and sources about this subject in the Portuguese Wikipedia.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NPOSSIBLE applies. Check the Portuguese wiki for better sources.Contributor892z (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gem Souleyman[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about an actor, and added a review of a film he was in. This is just a few words of coverage, however. I cannot see any other coverage in reliable, independent sources which does more than verify that he was in the film. The article has been tagged as possibly not notable since 2013. I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and United Kingdom. Tacyarg (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to keet wp:gng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Money Threepwood (talk • contribs) 04:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. I can not verify that he "starred" in films that he supposedly "starred" in. Lack of reliable sources exist. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also not seeing any coverage on this person. Hkkingg (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Prince[edit]

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

Unrelaible sources that do not even give roles for the subject so fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a mess of a page that's better off deleted. It was originally a redirect and probably should've stayed that way. 2603:6080:5D00:2562:25F9:8413:5686:472A (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what "mess" you're talking about or may be "dunno". In any case, watch your words dear editor! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll reword my statement. "Subject isn't noteworthy enough for an article and sources aren't reliable." 2603:6080:5D00:2562:25F9:8413:5686:472A (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Database results. An article about an actor that doesn't meet our general notability guidelines for an actor and producer. Again, SIGCOV case! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR, WP:MILL, and WP:RS. His roles have primarily been of the Redshirt (character) variety, too brief or cameo to get to automatic notability. Producers are too common to be automatically notable. I don't see any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. A reminder to the nominator that AFDs are not a way to get an article better sourced. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. And if you "hate to do this" maybe think twice about what you are doing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irma Tam Soong[edit]

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

I hate to do this to someone who clearly has done a lot of good work in their life, but she seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. There is practically no news coverage of her beyond WP:NOBITS. She has exactly one notable paper and while that does seem to get a bit of citing, it's probably not enough, as usually need multiple notable publications to be considered notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, China, and Hawaii. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears likely that one or both of her books should be notable, although finding reviews is more difficult for someone who worked before the internet era. FWIW, there's another, earlier, profile of her in the Star Bulletin [5]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good find, maybe one or two more, and she could meet WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone open this [6] it seems to talk about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be her most notable work, "Sun Yat-sen's Christian Schooling in Hawai'i" it's discussed here [7] and her paper is quoted here :[8]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least, should be mentioned in the Hawaiʻi Chinese History Center article (now a red link). Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This, this, this, this, this and this should be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are probably newspaper reviews of her books, but pre-internet - someone with access to US/Hawaii sources could probably find them. I've removed the unnecessary names of the grand- and greatgrandchildren. PamD 07:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources added after the nomination show a clear case for WP:GNG.Contributor892z (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. The sources identified by Somebodyidkfkdt and Russ Woodroofe were particularly helpful – absolute best of the lot included "IRMA TAM SOONG: Historian" in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin in 1990, and "Whither the Chinese History Center?" in the the Honolulu Advertiser in 1974. Soong is discussed and quoted in numerous other newspaper articles, also in California where she was a frequent public speaker as well as a lecturer in Chinese language and literature at Pomona College. In terms of national recognition, Soong received a an award from the American Association for State and Local History in 1975. As noted by Oaktree b above, her most widely cited work is her 1997 article in The Hawaiian Journal of History, titled "Sun Yat-sen's Christian Schooling in Hawai'i", which is quoted in various publications such as Sino-Christian Studies, the Journal of Pacific History, and Chinese America: History and Perspectives. The article now tells a very complete story about the life of Irma Tam Soong, and there are numerous other sources cited in the article now besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the new sources found, we have notability. More than enough for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent work by Cielquiparle. Toughpigs (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I'm leaning towards keep per WP:HEY. I'm glad to see the new sources, this was what I was hoping might come out of this AfD Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Farooq (journalist)[edit]

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

This BLP appears to be overly promotional, with many of the cited sources merely mentioning the subject without providing substantial coverage. clearly, the subject fails to meet the WP:GNG. Disregard the unreliable references used in the BLP. Additionally, it's worth noting that much of the article was contributed by Shaistakausar.pk (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Clearly unencyclopedic and just for the promotion of the subject. samee converse 19:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOP Foundation[edit]

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

Nothing here indicates any kind of notability. The article has been around for a long time, and it's been in a poor state for a long time. Google proves that the organization exists, but I don't see anything that proves it should have an article here. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Museums and libraries, Organizations, France, Spain, Venezuela, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Clear failure of ORGCRIT. I could not find any reliable sources after a quick search and the sources listed refer only to the a section in the article which lists off exhibitions the foundation has been involved in. It's possible that these provide RS SIGCOV of the foundation itself. I don't have access to the sources but this seems unlikely to me that they do provide SIGVOC or are RS. If anyone finds any other sources please let me know. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the BEFORE search, sources that came up are routine announcements.Nitish shetty (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete does not have any reliable sources, I tried clicking on them and my computer blocked me everytime so the sources are unreliable and the article also has multiple issues. ThtgirlLexi(talk) 6:15, 9 April 2024 (CDT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

The meaning of JarrahTree's comment in regard to the Nov. 2016 article is not quite clear to me but it is giving me enough pause that I'm chosing to close this discussion as a Soft Delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buni Yani[edit]

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

This sounds like a case of WP:BLP1E. This guy is the deputy chairman of a minuscule (.5%< of the vote and no seats in any assembly whatsoever) far-right party. Occasionally, he has additionally received coverage as part of his political party, but this is probably WP:INHERITED notability. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Journalism, Indonesia, Netherlands, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree on WP:BLP1E. This individual primary notability stems from uploading an edited and defamatory video, as evidenced in the article about the November 2016 Jakarta protests. His involvement in politics, journalism, or academics is not as notable as the case in the first sentence and does not meet the relevant notability criteria. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment - component parts of the complexity of Indonesian politics is in my reference of understanding where and why something sits, is very different from the nominator and seconder - and to choose this to delete compared to other items may meet or not notability - so be it, but the details and components of the November 2016 events to me do have inherent notability regardless. In some cases in Indonesian history of the last 1400 years, a single act can be the key component of a whole range of subsequent things, which of course runs counter to WP:BLP1E. Needless to say if it goes, it would be well worth checking the November 2016 article for anything that might be carried over. JarrahTree 04:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A case of WP:BLP1E that doesn't meet entry for Wikipedia. Looking at the article, I don't know whether to start with politics or journalist. While we see the article lacks verifiable sources, it doesn't meet our general notability guidelines, WP:NPOL—won no major title in Indonesia pertaining to politicians. Being a "deputy" and "contesting for election" is far from notability. Looking at the other side, it doesn't meet any single form for WP:JOURNALIST. Either ways, I can't say redirect, "deletion" is the case here! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Housing Justice[edit]

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

Very old, largely unreferenced article with what looks like an extensive history of COI editing (though not recent). Appears to have some coverage of a CEO changeover but I couldn't find anything that goes into detail about the organisation itself. I'd be equally happy with a merge if a suitable target is identified. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also was only able to find these news stories on the CEO resigning ([9] & [10]) and an interview with her ([11]). Overall this does not seem to be enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT. The articles on her resignation feel thin and perhaps press release-y. Please ping if something changes. Jtrrs0 (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most information given in the article is not supported by the provided source. Nitish shetty (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not speedily as it has just come due for closure Star Mississippi 16:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lev Parnas[edit]

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

Obvious WP:BLP1E violation. Relevant details can be merged into Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections Simonm223 (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are way past that stage. He has become notable enough for his own article. Giving proper coverage (literally everything here) at Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections would create a due weight problem requiring a summary style splitting off, resulting in what we have here, so there is no sense in deleting this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, notable for a single event only. That it's a widely covered event doesn't change anything. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Conspiracy theories, Crime, Politics, Judaism, Ukraine, Florida, Michigan, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP1E requires three conditions to be met. #3, The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, is not met. The event is significant and his role in it is substantial and well documented. Also #2, The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, does not appear to be met. He just testified in front of Congress recently. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps SNOW? Per Muboshgu, this is a clear case of WP:NOTBLP1E. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There are obviously enough sources about Parnas to establish his notability, his role was substantial and well enough documented – resulting in this long article – and Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections is obviously long enough itself that that the substantial content here cannot be suitably merged. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu, most of the WP:BLP1E criteria don't apply. hinnk (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Sal2100 (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. There are enough sources documenting the substantial role of Mr. Parnas in Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamalejo (talk • contribs) 17:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Blatant abuse of BLP1E, lack of WP:BEFORE. He has had extensive and significant coverage over the past 8 years. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Please close early. Based on a look at the OP's user pages, I can not assume good faith, nor calling out an experienced editor that they are adhering to our neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place to grind your axe or stand and scream on a soap box while wearing your vatnik. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who agrees this should be a WP:SNOW close, I think your comments here are inappropriate and counterproductive. hinnk (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 16:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Fruman[edit]

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

Clear violation of WP:BLP1E relevant details should be merged into Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We are way past that stage. He has become notable enough for his own article. Giving proper coverage (literally everything here) at Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections would create a due weight problem requiring a summary style splitting off, resulting in what we have here, so there is no sense in deleting this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's notable for a single event. That it's widely covered is neither here nor there.Simonm223 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Politics, Judaism, Belarus, Ukraine, Florida, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep BLP1E requires three conditions to be met. #3, The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, is not met. The event is significant and his role in it is substantial and well documented. I say "weak" here because he has maintained a lower profile than Lev Parnas. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's more than one event. There's his involvement in efforts in Ukraine to search for damaging information on Biden, and then there's his campaign finance law conviction. The two are, as the article states, unrelated. Jfire (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. subject has enough reliable coverage such as 1 and 2.Bradelykooper (talk) 09:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Antiquization. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Prayer[edit]

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

The video/film clearly lacks notability and the article appears to be originally researched for the most part. It is already appropiately covered in the article Antiquization. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Film, Television, and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antiquization: Not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or just delete per above Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 battles in Rajasthan#16th Century as a viable ATD since there was little input since all the socks were blocked and there's no sense of further coming Star Mississippi 14:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ontala (1599)[edit]

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

Reasons are listed below:

The article title, "Siege of Ontala (1599)," appears to be fabricated. There are no reliable sources mentioning either "Siege of Ontala (1599) [12]" or simply "Siege of Ontala [13]" that occurred in 1599. This name seems to be invented, as no historian refers to the military conflict by this name .
Among all the sources cited in the article, with the exception of "Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs," all other sources fall under either WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, or WP:V. The article lacks coverage in enough reliable secondary sources, thus failing to meet the notability criteria WP:GNG. The information can be easily merged to any of the parent articles. Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

It's a historical battle lol Narook (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men. Narook (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado aren't these sources enough? Narook (talk) 09:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado the article should not be deleted

Amar Singh besieged the fort of Ontala from Mughals in 1599. [1]1st

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jahangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate

source 2:

2nd

Page number 15, Siege of ontala is mentioned

Source 3:

3rd

The siege of the frontier fortress of Ontala, which is about thirty kilometres east of Oodipoor, is famous in the annals of Rajasthan

Source 4 : Mewar & the Mughal Emperors (1526-1707 A.D.)

Page 125- Kayum Khan, the Mughal general of Ontala was killed while resisting the Rajput attack and the fort of Ontala fell in the hands of Amar Singh's men

Narook (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontala is also pronounced as Untala

The annual of the east- page 136

siege of Untala, who, descending calmly from his elephant, placed his body on the spikes of the high portal, to serve as a cushion for the beast to push against...

Calcutta Review Volumes 104-105 page 8

Volumes 104-105

Rana Amara Sing , who recovered Chitor after its last capture by Akbar , and the occasion was the attack on the fortress of Untala , whose ruins still Stand between Chittor and udaipur Narook (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are unreliable and not verifiable. The deletion discussion is not a place to make questions against me. If you could do WP:HEY. Go for it. But as long as there is no reliable sources calling it "Siege of Ontala", we can't keep this on mainspace. It's all about naming an event. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado Unreliable?? Seriously? Do you think historians who've written these books are fools? Narook (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RAJ, WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:V, and WP:RS. Not evert historian is reliable. And we are definitely not making articles for each and every military conflicts here. See WP:Guide to Deletion and please do not fill the page with unnecessary messages. Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado it was a major decisive victory for the kingdom of Mewar, stop Mughal POV pushing Narook (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep-~~ the article shouldn't be deleted see WP:RSes. We have multiple sources about siege of ontala 1599 Narook (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImperialAficionado before adding articles for deletion, please discuss about the article in the talk section Narook (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narook, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING the AfD. Out of the 11 comments on this AfD, 9 of those are yours. Calm down and let the process happen. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources appear to refer to the event as 'The Siege of Ontala' so we cannot have a page called The Siege of Ontala. Tennisist123 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, there is the wild possibility of moving the article to a different page title that is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the context pass WP:GNG, we can keep by moving. Else, there is no other option. Imperial ^[AFCND] 05:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz the Siege of ontala is also called as Siege of Untala 1 moving the page from Siege of Ontala to Siege of Untala would be a better idea Narook (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~•Keep~~- @Tennisist123 @Liz @Spiderone I've quoted the sources mentioning Siege of Ontala below

Encyclopaedia Indica: Mughals and Rajputs (1999) Page 72: Siege of Ontala , the siege of which is famous for one of the most extraordinary exhibitions of Rajput courage recorded in the annals of Rajasthan . The right to lead the herole ( vanguard ) , which had for generations belonged to the Chondawats.

Glimpses of Old Bombay and Western India, with Other Papers page 315

siege at Ontala , in Rajasthan , in Jehangier's time an elephant refused to push at a spiked gate , when a Rajpoot Chief placed his body between it and the gate ,

Maharaj Shakti Singh and the Shaktawats of Boheda (2004)

During the Siege of Untala and Sacrifice of Ballu The right to lead in battle was regarded as a sign of the greatest honour among the Rajputs . This honour was traditionally enjoyed by the Chundawats in Mewar . During the reign of Maharana Amar Singh Narook (talk) 06:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing these, @Narook

From my perspective, 1 and 2 are not admissible. 1. We should not be using encyclopedias as proof of notability. 2. Does not describe a proper noun, it describes that a siege occured at this place. The existence of a siege is not what is under discussion but whether the acton was commonly referred to as The Siege of Ontala.

3. is great and supportive of keeping the page. However, I still do not think it is sufficient alone. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I've struck the duplicate keep votes from a sock, there has not yet been enough participation (votes) to determine a consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned at List of battles in Rajasthan, does it make sense to redirect it there as an alternative to deletion? Typically I would expect this kind of topic to be discussed in a broader history article about the wider conflict, or in the article on the place/fort itself. But it doesn't look like we have an article for the fortress? -- asilvering (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Engineering Company[edit]

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

Notability has not been adequately demonstrated BoraVoro (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Technology, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three of the sources look okay - why aren't they adequate? Garuda3 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. References for companies must meet the criteria of WP:ORGCRIT and nothing here does. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The references meet the criteria and prove credability of this company. Mlaviolette (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references meet our notability criteria though? HighKing⁺⁺ 23:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sourcing in the article is lacking, mostly industry publications. While there's no specific bar on earned media being used for WP:NORG notability these are quite narrowcast and not indicative of independent reporting. The Wash U article is an outlier -extensive, independent but narrowly focused on a COVID/PPE issue. If other reliable in-depth coverage surfaces I'd be willing to reconsider.
@BoraVoro did you do WP:BEFORE searches? There is quite a bit of independent discussion of the company in connection with Hunter Engineering Co v Syncrude Canada Ltd but I don't see that blossomed into a broader article about the company. It would have been helpful if you had acknowledged the existence of such sources and explained why they didn't support notability.
@Mlaviolette is a single purpose account focusing on this company and its chairman Stephen F. Brauer. A query about conflict of interest is unanswered at the talk page for nearly 5 years, but this edit admits to working for the company. Oblivy (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 23:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs broadcast by ABS-CBN#Current affairs. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mga Kwento ni Marc Logan[edit]

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

Tagged as uncited since its creation in June 2016, likely to not pass WP:GNG. At worst, redirect to another suitable article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ABS-CBN#Current_affairs per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Good idea. FWIW, the host is not a close relative, obviously. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALPHA Technology Group Limited[edit]

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

This company does not meet the notability requirements. The references included are, bar one, based on press-releases or non-in-depth coverage. It's a non-notable holding company that was founded very recently. JeffUK 12:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Hong Kong. Skynxnex (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – currently sourcing are profiles, routine coverage and pages which does not significantly cover the subject. Online found more unreliable/routine coverage, so fails notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's talk together!)} 18:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The company does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. I did not find coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Singh (professor)[edit]

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

non-notable NPROF, sources are SPS, and more as per Talk page Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, India, Delhi, and Gujarat. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 11:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete On examining what is in his apparent Scholar page, many of the papers are not his, so the h-factors of 47 and 10k citations claimed by the original editor is incorrect. His university page https://cug.irins.org/profile/100821 has 357 journal articles claimed (dubious) and an h-factor of 28. Some of the claims on his patents are also very dubious on closer inspection. I have no tolerance for anything that comes close to academic dishonesty. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why? I'm unclear on what he's being dishonest about. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon for Google Scholar profiles to be inaccurate, because Google automatically picks up publications from people with similar names and the person whose profile it is doesn't take the effort to remove them again. Being lazy about curating one's profile is not dishonest. But the article creator should know better. If the article creator is taking the GS profile as valid when it isn't, that speaks to a certain lack of care but is not in itself dishonest. If the article was created through COI editing or undeclared paid editing (for which I have no evidence) then it involves likely oversight by the subject and then honesty might come into it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, please remember that Google Scholar profiles are created by academics, and they can (should) subtract inappropriate papers which might end up there. If you go to his profile and follow the papers to look at where authors are from, e.g. this and this you will see that they have "Man Singh" authors from different locations and very different fields. There are some where the initials are different. There are other interesting issues in the Wiki page such as the statement that he is/was a Dean, which I cannot verify at his university. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking through the top-ten-cited publications on Google Scholar, I see: "Ecofriendly application", "Cassia fistula extracts": Hindawi, dubiously-reliable publisher. "Survismeter": heavy self-citations. "Decline of human anatomy", "Soil fungi for mycoremediation", "monthly high‐dose vitamin D", "Structure and Biogenesis": different affiliation, probably not by the same person. "Methods and computer program products", "Chest pain": not even the same name. At #9, finally, we have "Physicochemical and friccohesity", looking legitimate but with 93 citations. That's definitely not enough for WP:PROF#C1. Nothing else stands out in the article as a likely claim to notability, and most of its content is promotional. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject himself is the participant in all sources on the page. The page looks more like a resume. The subject is not notable under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Fails WP:NACADEMIC with no independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources are not part of the WP:NACADEMIC requirements. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not WP:PROF notability.Tame Rhino (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Chocolate Watchband. Star Mississippi 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Step Beyond (Chocolate Watchband album)[edit]

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

Does not fulfill WP:NALBUM, one review on AllMusic and no other mention pops up on a Google or Archive.org search. Broc (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Broc (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Chocolate Watchband: Came up with the same results as the nominator. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hinayana (band). Star Mississippi 14:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order Divine[edit]

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

Does not fulfill WP:NALBUM, no coverage in reliable sources. Broc (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Broc (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hinayana (band): Not actually sure how WP feels about AngryMetalGuy (we do use it a lot, but it hasn't been discussed much and what discussion there has been (1 and 2) is mixed opinions), but that's the only source here that seems even worth really considering. The rest, I suppose, are all maybes, but they're not the most promising. Otherwise, I could only find passing mentions of this album in coverage of the band's later work. I wouldn't be opposed to a merger except that the band's article is currently lacking in sections to put that info in and would probably need reworked first (I have tagged the page with ((lead too long))). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I found no other reviews in English or German. Geschichte (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Bates (poet)[edit]

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

Delete: fails notability, GNG, SIGCOV, POET. Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, Indiana, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as mentioned above, does not meet WP:POET. His only somewhat famous work is "Speak Gently", but I couldn't find good sources even for that. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Speak Gently" is fairly widely reprinted, and his poetry has attracted a bit of critical discussion (though not an overwhelming amount) [14] [15] [16]. More importantly, we get significant coverage of Bates here from the reputable Martin Gardner, which includes mention of obituaries in the Philadelphia Public Ledger and Philadelphia Inquirer, and a bit of coverage here. There are also some brief contemporary reviews of The Eolian, ie [17] and [18] and [19]. I think there's enough here to establish notability, especially for someone from the 19th century. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those look like some good sources indeed, should they be added to the article as references? Bendegúz Ács (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- '''Keep''' Based on your listing of these handful of citations, I think there is a chance that the article subject could meet notability requirements. But, those citations need to be added to the article or else it simply appears too think to make it.WmLawson (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources presented above, Bates appears to meet WP:NBASIC, and the article should be kept rather than deleted per WP:NEXIST. Hatman31 (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The fact that it was parodied in a rather famous book indicates it was at least somewhat well-known at the time. The new sources given are ok, it's not a lot, but just barely at GNG. Died over 100 yrs ago, not likely to have much coverage unless a scholar takes an interest and does a deep dive. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Refs indicated above support WP:NEXIST. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Self-replicating machine. In the now cleaned up / stubbified form. Sandstein 07:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-replicating machines in fiction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No consensus two years ago, and zero improvement since. The topic may be notable, but our execution is abysmally bad and begs for WP:TNT - after tiny prose lead, this is just a WP:IPC-violating list of random examples. I.e. this is another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances self-replicating machines appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, it falls WP:GNG, mostly WP:V and WP:OR). No prejudice to this being turned into a prose-based stub if anyone wants to work on this, but otherwise I think blanking/redirecting this would be best as 100% of the content we have here is unencyclopedic (TVTROPIS lists and OR). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / (Oppose Merge per below The existence of these in literature, esp. science fiction, is hopefully obvious. Immediately, the topic reminded me of the fictional story by Philip K. Dick titled Autofac. If the article has problems, just work to improve it. I have not looked extensively at the WP:RS, but a quick search on Google scholar seemed to find a relevant article. Also [20], "Science fiction writers have kept pace. Phillip K Dick, Arthur C Clarke and Nobel-nominated Karel Capek have all toyed with the idea, before John Sladek based his 1968 satirical novel, the Reproductive System, on a self-replicating machine that goes wild. It set the scene for movies like the Terminator to tap into fears of robots capable of reproducing and taking over." Chapter 4 of this book starts "The growing popularity of the dystopian genre in early twentieth century literature was fuelled in part by a fear of how technology might negatively influence the development of human society [24]. Here we highlight works from the genre that involved ideas of machine self-reproduction and evolution". I think that WP:RS shows it is notable. I'm not a big fan of WP:TNT. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) [revised 00:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)][reply]

Piotrus Rather than WP:TNT, why not tag the portions you think could use sourcing and/or contact the editors who put the material in and put them on notice that if they can't find sourcing, their addition(s) will go. And when a new editor comes in and tries to add unsourced material, let then know right away that won't work. I have a similar article on my watchlist List_of_films_impacted_by_the_COVID-19_pandemic in which editors, esp. IP's, come in and add films about to be released that have no evidence they were impacted by the pandemic. I revert them and warn them. And I am slowly purging the list of films whose RS does not mention the pandemic. I'd rather teach the new editors to behave rather than destroy their "work". I have added this one, and can help in that regard.... --David Tornheim (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim The problem is that I think nothing here is rescuable except maybe the unreferenced lead. And if we let it be, nobody will bother working on this - this needs to be cut down to a sentence or two, and built up again from it. I'll ping User:TompaDompa who has rewritten and rescued more similar articles than me so the can give you a few examples (I am falling asleep now). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I don't know if you regularly edit X in fiction articles and are familiar with the rather specific set of common problems associated with them, but in case you do not and are not (as well as for the benefit of others reading this): Newcomers adding unsourced material because they genuinely haven't yet learned how sourcing works on Wikipedia is certainly a problem, but it is generally speaking a relatively minor one. The most common reason these articles are so bad is that they were created long ago when standards were either lower or not as diligently enforced, and have never been cleaned up properly. This article is a case in point: the (terrible) list existed on self-replicating machine until it was (correctly) removed by Harizotoh9 back in March 2017. That would have been the end of it, except Fixuture restored it to this stand-alone article in May 2017. It languished in this form until it was nominated for deletion by Piotrus in June 2022. That eventually went to deletion review—the upshot was that there was agreement that the article was not in a satisfactory state but disagreement about whether it should be fixed or deleted entirely (both the AfD and the Deletion Review were closed as "no consensus"). Nearly two years later, the article has still not been improved. This is, unfortunately, par for the course.

The core problem is that most editors do not know how to write articles on topics like this, and their intuitive best guess—emulating TV Tropes—is wrong. This problem was outlined by Uncle G back in 2008 in the essay WP:CARGO. The way to do it properly (also mentioned in WP:CARGO, though both the problem and solution are described in a slightly different way there than I do it here) is to find sources on the overarching topic (in this case, that would be self-replicating machines in fiction) and then use those sources to write about the topic, taking care to abide by WP:PROPORTION by presenting each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. This, of course, takes a lot more time, effort, and—frankly—skill than the typical TV Tropes approach.

The hope is that when people see what it looks like when done properly, they will at minimum stop doing it improperly, and perhaps even start doing it properly. To some extent it seems to have worked: there are now a handful of editors who know how to write such articles and are willing to do so. Their levels of proficiency vary of course, but that's not a problem since it is a trainable skill—when I look at some of my earlier efforts I find them to be rather mediocre (which is still way preferable to outright bad, as the TV Tropes-style lists are). On the other hand it has not worked nearly as well as I would have liked it to—there are still a large number of editors, even experienced ones who should really know better, who do not understand or do not accept that WP:PROPORTION applies to fiction-related content and that such content thus needs to be demonstrated to be a significant aspect of the overarching topic by citing sources on the overarching topic. Removing unsourced (or inadequately-sourced) content and explaining the sourcing requirements sounds like it should be a straightforward way to maintain these kinds of articles, but it isn't always. In my experience, it is usually easier to get through to the editors who want to include something without the proper sourcing when the article is already in decent shape than during the cleanup stage. TompaDompa (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~~I'm still reading the rest of your response.~~ Are you willing to help us fix the current article? Or consider the solution I suggested? I looked again at the history and saw that it appeared to be a fork off of the "self-replicating machines" article. No, I have not edited much on the SciFi stuff. But I know the problems from teenagers coming in and not knowing the rules. I'm all for teaching them. Will finish reading the rest of your response soon. One reason I can't stand WP:TNT, is because then we lose *EVERYTHING* that was written before and who wrote it. I would much prefer just seeing all the text that is poorly sourced removed and editors who put it in notified about the problem of adding unsourced material. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim As someone who invoked TNT, note that I also favor preserving the history of a page, hence the suggestion of a redirect to the main article. Sooner or later someone will restore this, in a proper way. Maybe even now - TompaDompa just recently did so with regards at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind uploading in fiction, which in theory is still ongoing, but it will certainly end as keep. Note that the new article has next to nothign in common with the mess that I nominated (but said messis preserved in the history in case someone wants to check if there is something useful there). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you want to preserve the history. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the benefit to leaving Mind uploading in fiction as a sub-stub-level separate article as opposed to a section at Mind uploading (and it currently happens to be wholly duplicated at Mind uploading#In fiction). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I finally found a moment to review the rest of your explanation. Thanks. I agree about the problem of WP:CARGO of amassing pointless lists. I have no reason to believe it should be difficult to clean this one up by focusing on what the WP:RS says about the significance the item has in fiction rather than just a list of things editors decided had the item (self-replicating machine). As in the examples you gave.

In this case, as I showed in my post, there are clearly reliable sources that discuss this. Why don't we amass a bunch of the best WP:RS and put it on the talk page? Then, attach the WP:RS to those items that are listed in the WP:RS--minimizing the current description to what the WP:RS says, and then delete all the items that have no WP:RS? And summarize what the WP:RS says about the topic. The result of that would a little like List_of_utopian_literature.

With more work it could evolve to be not even be a list at all--like the examples you gave--or like Postmodern literature, Literary modernism, Utopian and dystopian fiction.

As for stopping new additions, as long as it is on our watchlists, it should be no problem IMHO. I am willing to start doing that now, unless that would somehow mess up this AfD. Does anyone object to my moving forward with this plan? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attaching sources to examples that were originally added without them is an approach that well-meaning editors have taken in the past with articles like this, but unfortunately it is merely a cosmetic fix that does pretty much nothing to ensure properly reflecting the balance given to different aspects by the sources. When we start with material added by editors based on what they personally felt were important and add sources after the fact, we end up reproducing and compounding those editorial biases. The way to get articles to reflect the balance of the sources is to use the sources as a starting point from which the article is built.

Turning this into a prose article is definitely the way to go. Experience tells us that the list format itself encourages the addition of content that lacks proper sourcing. The four articles you mention are not really examples to emulate—they are all (at time of writing) rife with unsourced (and likely also inadequately-sourced, though I haven't taken a close enough look to say that for certain) material. TompaDompa (talk) 08:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entire list, since it needed to go anyway. Feel free to start building an article based on proper sources unencumbered by the previous mess. TompaDompa (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that based on the sources I've found, this seems to mostly be discussed in the context of nanotechnology, so covering it at Nanotechnology in fiction (itself an article that needs to be rewritten from scratch) might be an alternative. TompaDompa (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TompaDompa: I do see your point about working from the WP:RS first rather than attaching ref to the list. It doesn't bother me that you deleted all the entries in the list that were not properly referenced. Those who want them back can ask.

I put in the three refs I found.

I disagree that this is primarily about nano-technology--even though that is mentioned in some of the sources. If you look at something like Autofac, those machines were not nano. I imagine there are countless other examples that are not nano. But it might be a subgenre of the self-replicating machines. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're clear, it's not whether the stories are about nanotechnology but about whether the sources are. Gary Westfahl's Science Fiction Literature through History: An Encyclopedia covers it in the "Nanotechnology" entry, for instance. Stephen Webb's All the Wonder that Would Be: Exploring Past Notions of the Future likewise covers self-replicating machines in the context of nanotechnology. George Mann's The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction does too. And so on, and so on, and so on. Of course, these may not be representative of the overall literature on the topic. The gray goo scenario probably goes a long way towards explaining why this is the context in which so many sources discuss self-replicating machines. TompaDompa (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I think there is tremendous potential here, with self-replicating machines being something of a fictional trope, but this largely unsourced list isn't it. BD2412 T 15:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since no such things exist, why is this a separate topic? Isn't the von Neumann probe just a particular instance published in academic, rather than popular, literature? Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see the article has been effectively TNTed and is being rewritten. As such my initial rationale no longer applies. Unless the article reverted to its older version, I also favour keeping the new version. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-replicating machine. The original article was, obviously, useless - this one is better but enough of a stub it simply does not merit a split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Self-replicating machine per Zxcvbnm. There isn't much to say here, now that the unreliable sources are cleaned-up. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is one good source that covers the topic in-depth and at length: Rise of the Self-Replicators: Early Visions of Machines, AI and Robots That Can Reproduce and Evolve [Wikidata] (2020) by Tim Taylor [Wikidata] and Alan Dorin [Wikidata]. Part of chapter 4 (pp. 29–34) deals specifically with the topic of self-replicating machines in fiction, and part of chapter 7 (pp. 83–89) touches upon it a bit more. If there are more sources of this caliber it should be possible to write a pretty good article on the topic. With only this and sources where the coverage is a lot briefer and/or surface-level (or indeed lower-quality sources) however, I don't think there's a realistic approach to doing so without falling into over-reliance on a single source. TompaDompa (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-replicating machine - With the cleaned up version of the article effectively eliminating the reason why a split occurred initially, it makes sense to merge it back into a single article. Rorshacma (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Self-replicating machine. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed my original !vote to include "oppose merge" [21]. Why? Although I agree the new version is short enough to justify a merge, that was after a huge deletion was just made on 4/6/24. Also, I appear to be the only one did a search and found some WP:RS. I would be surprised if there is not significantly more in literature books about science fiction and dystopic novels.

Also, the merge suggestion is to bring it back to "self-replicating machines" where I believe it was originally forked from. Although relevant to that article, I believe this topic is not primarily about abstract or theoretical concepts about such machines (as proposed by inventors like Descartes, von Neumann, Alan Turing, or recent discoveries in Nano-tech) that just happened to be fictionalized with the idea that these might be technologically feasible and desirable. Some of the most notable fiction writers like Philip K. Dick and Stanley Kubrick (or writers of Terminator) that use them frequently portray these with a clear sense of dread about what these machines might do if "left to their own devices", similar to a works like 1984, We_(novel), Logan's Run (film), and countless dystopic novels and films. These themes suggests to me that the portrayal of the machines in fiction is not about primarily about the technology itself, but is instead about telling important stories about humans and their relationship with technology and warning about perceived dangers.

Hence, I believe it should be available from both directions (fiction and technology) rather just technology side.

@Zxcvbnm,Shooterwalker,Rorshacma,Greenish Pickle!: Those of you suggesting a merge, can you please address my concerns? Some of you didn't give much reason for your !vote and few discussed what is in the WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because as it stands, it offers no benefit to readers to have this as a separate article. It is a stub that half of is simply repeating the information found in the first couple of sentences in the Self-replicating machine article. Per WP:NOPAGE, even notable topics don't automatically need to have stand-alone articles when covering it as part of a broader topic gives greater context, which I believe is the case here after the terrible TV Tropes style list was correctly removed by TompaDompa. It is also important to note that merging now does now preclude it being split back out in the future - if a full prose article that is not just a list of examples can be developed, it can be easily restored as a separate article then. But until that is done, I would not advocate keeping this as a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Ferre[edit]

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

I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources to show she meets WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Journalism, Japan, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing in the Fr and Japanese articles is about as sparse as here. I don't see anything in either EN or FR sources for this individual. Lack of sourcing, delete. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Graue[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find sources demonstrating notability. An alternative to deletion is a redirect to List of Lost characters. toweli (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Hawaii. toweli (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kota Kinabalu#shopping. where newly identified sourcing can be added to the existing mention. Consensus appears that sourcing isn't sufficient for a standalone. Star Mississippi 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karamunsing Complex[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns 11 months ago. A search for sources only found routine coverage rather than indepth coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kota Kinabalu#shopping where the shopping centre is already mentioned if notability for a separate article cannot be established. Rupples (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the additional sources. 2 of them appear to be blog like websites. [22] and [23] LibStar (talk) 09:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a quick news search brings up several articles where the centre is mentioned in passing, or it is the main focus but the article is fairly short. So although significant coverage isn't immediately demonstrable, I'm reasonably confident that such coverage is likely to exist (e.g. in newspapers at the time of the mall opening etc). Waggers TALK 11:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You must specify the sources you claim that exist. LibStar (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manpo Line. Randykitty (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puksinhyon station[edit]

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

Non-notable railway station with no defining features or relevance. Fails WP:GNG and WP:STATION. Could be merged with Korean State Railway. OsmiumGuard (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) \[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep It does have some features of prominence: "the starting point of the narrow-gauge Unsan Line to Samsan." Not to say yhat in susch situation the option advised by WP:GNG is to merge not delete. - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it doesn't make to merge it with the Korean State Railway article as that article is too broad in scope. Additionally, this is a junction station so it serves a navigational purpose and it doesn't make sense to merge it with one line when it is on multiple. Garuda3 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that simply being a junction doesn't give a station notability, according to my interpretation of WP:STATION. Even in Korean I couldn't find anything outside of the fact that it exists. Granted, this may be because of the fact that the North Korean internet is not very good at presenting information about its country. OsmiumGuard (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I am going to WP:AGF the one source in the article has SIGCOV, combined with this source where the snippet suggests it has significant coverage makes it cross the line, just barely.

백과 전서 (in Korean). 과학, 백과 사전 출판사. 1982.

Jumpytoo Talk 03:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV. None of the voters above made a policy based vote. A single source, no matter how in-depth, does not meet the multiple sources requirement. That said, nobody has seen this source and there is no evidence that it has in-depth coverage. Additionally, there is no obvious merge or redirect target, so WP:ATD can't be invoked. The closer should consider the strength of the arguments. I strongly contest a keep or no consensus close given that the other opinions outright ignored deletion policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Manpo Line. Non notable station, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Single source is insufficient to prove its notable, which defines the fact that can't be merged, because its not notable. If it was there would be more sources. It is a straight-delete. No indication of significance to support a redirect. scope_creep^Talk 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manpo Line, as it is listed there. I also cannot find evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and unless proven otherwise, from the brief excerpt at our disposal the one source mentioned in this discussion doesn't show significant coverage. Every other !keep vote is not motivated by a policy-based rationale. Pilaz (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manpo Line: As a valid train station WP:ATD. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Domaine Ylang Ylang[edit]

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

Non-notable, closed distillery with no WP:RS on page, none that I could find, and none are likely to exist. Cabrils (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Mauritius. Shellwood (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the assumption we all actually know what Ylang Ylang actually is, I would like to confirm that this subject has nothing to do with food and drink!!!! This domaine is historically probably the oldest Ylang Ylang (NOT food) distillery and perhaps the oldest of all in terms of essential oils and perfumes. So your understanding, patience and encouragement are the order of the day. I am putting on record some of the history of Mauritius where precious little or no recording of history occurs, as the island gets more and more commercialised. So do not delete it before you do research on and/ or know Mauritius and its past and culture. Stockbroker369 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a tourist attraction, but not enough source material to build an article. There are a number of articles relating to the owner being convicted of a killing in 2006 but I didn't see any real discussion of the business. I added one cite; if others find more I'll reconsider my vote. Oblivy (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion as there is are comments that are clearly an unbolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find an additional paragraph of coverage in a Spanish-language travel book [24], and got Google Books hits on an additional book and a magazine article whose previews are not rendering for me ([25], [26]. I'd be willing to guess that additional coverage exists in undigitized travel guides. It also pops up in Google Scholar results for fly species discoveries, which is another potential source of offline coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of sources known to be available would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 United States national rugby union players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demecus Beach[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an American rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. A possible redirect target seems to be List of United States national rugby union players. JTtheOG (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Ohio. JTtheOG (talk) 04:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States national rugby union players Struggling to see enough for a WP:GNG pass here @Jevansen: has done a lot of expansions of USA rugby players recently so may be able to dig up some more stuff, suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find anything of significance from my searches. Possible "Demecus" has some other variation (nickname) but until sources show up would agree to redirect to player list. Jevansen (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not sure why but this AFD did attract a bunch of new accounts for unknown reasons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 1118[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:Notability, and its also missing the main flight infobox. The whole article is missing so much information and is unorganized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZAviation21 (talk • contribs) 4 April 2024 at 21:39 (UTC)

Keep: As article creator. Also, that reasoning is very short, I doubt it's going to go very far. First AFD by creator and it's already an erroneous one. In addition, lack of templates is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. If it's unorganized, why don't you be bold and fix it yourself? thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I didn't try to even fix it because I know this article will be deleted. Also note that if these incidents are enough to have its own article, then there would be WAY more of these flight articles on Wikipedia. WP:NOTNEWS ZAviation21 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although choosing not to spend your time fixing an article you think will be deleted is reasonable, articles having unfinished aspects is not generally accepted as a reason to delete an article. In particular, make sure you've read WP:DEL#REASON and WP:BEFORE. (And welcome to Wikipedia!) Skynxnex (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider making a response Delete or Keep. You just replying to someone makes you look rather foolish then anything. And his intention (zAviation21), is that the flight has absolutely no notability of anything, engine fires, emergency landings are too far way to common. They also don't even meet the requirements for an article. Its like making an article for a flight because lightning struck its wing. Funny enough the article looks like its been made by an 8 year old. 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:41BB:B47B:8498:1F14 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you remember to assume good faith. AFDs aren't votes, for one thing, and people are not obliged to make a WP:!VOTE. I hadn't looked at the AFD enough to decide my opinion but I felt like someone who has spent a fair amount of contributing to the AFD process I might help a relatively new user (ZAviation21) craft more effective AFDs in the future. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: That is only part of the problem. The big problem with this article is that it isn't a notable event. Compressor stalls happen all the time so if Wikipedia considers compressor stall events a "notable event", there would be hundreds of articles about that in list of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft. Ok here is an example of a removed article that was pulled last month. UA35, you now what that is right? if not, it was a United 777 that lost a wheel on take off and hit a parked car. that was pulled due to it not meeting the notability criteria. I admire that you want to add an event to the list but it just isn't relevant enough to be added to the list. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also shameless plug, if you want to read that article and read why it was pulled, go to the internet archive, I saved those pages to read if one wants to. IDKUggaBanga (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no evidence of lasting significance. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:44, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:SUSTAINED, WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Routine mechanical failure with little to no consequences, no loss of life, no crash, no rescue attempt. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails absolutely everything, one I can bring up is that WP:NOTNEWS. 0 notability, way too common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:4C7F:DA00:41BB:B47B:8498:1F14 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already stated above just a bad day at the office not that uncommon and certainly not noteworthy for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An incident of compressor stall occurred which was not significant enough to garner any noteworthy attention. Compressor stalls are quite common and occur frequently. WP:NOTNEWS. CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely not article worthy, if this is article worthy then there would be way more aircraft incident/accident articles out there. This isn't meet WP:Notability and is WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviationz (talk • contribs) 04:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nullify above vote: See User talk:ZAviation21#A question about other accounts thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 02:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: run-of-the-mill incident, fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does Delta Air Lines Flight 89 have an article? Fadedreality556 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly convinced that the DL89 incident is notable either (though the fuel dump over a populated area is probably a contributing factor that makes it more notable than the article under discussion). But in any case WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't matter here. Rosbif73 (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the article should be deleted, feel free to nominate it but per WP:WHATABOUT, this shouldn't be used as an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The incident is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Could have been procedurally kept anyway, since it was a redirect page when it was nominated. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Godilanka[edit]

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

This is title for village article, whch is not notable as per English wikipedia policies. It was earlier redirected to its district page, which is not meaningful. Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Arjunaraoc (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is blank, is there a need for an AfD or Speedy delete instead? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it's a populated place, WP:RFD#DELETE #10 applies. It's not mentioned at the prior redirect target, East Godavari district. Technically WP:RFD would have been the appropriate venue for this discussion, but WP:NOTBURO. Jfire (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that it has been converted to a stub. Jfire (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This takes you to Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) that was a failed proposal with no judgement. Maybe time its revived again for more discussion so that a judgement can be reached and a policy can be hardlined for such pages. I was leaning to vote Draftify because sources were found that had indepth detail on the village, Godilanka Population - East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh and more by censusindia.co.in but this site has been blacklisted. If the creator can bring on reliable independent sources with notable detail, I will reconsider.RangersRus (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it should have redirected to the list of villages (sourced) at Allavaram mandal. It now does - or would, without the inappropriate AfD clutter. Enough sources exist, by the way, to restore it as a separate stub but since it's unlikely ever to be more than that, the redirect is probably better. Ingratis (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Keep as stub, expanded by Arjunaraoc. Ingratis (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this AfD is procedurally inappropriate - perhaps someone uninvolved would close it? Ingratis (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering the above feedback, I have created a stub article, translating from the corresponding Telugu wiki article. I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driaan Bester[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 03:48, 5 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) 03:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prana (band)[edit]

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

Non notable group. Just end up finding sources of other bands with the same name instead. GamerPro64 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Japan. GamerPro64 03:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Googled it, found a Malaysian band, an American female-fronted grunge band, but not this one.

Neocorelight (Talk) 06:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm only able to find once piece of coverage and it certainly doesn't describe them as 'one of the most acclaimed pioneers' of their genre. InDimensional (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noam Bettan[edit]

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

A user posted about this on my talk page, wanting to remove the template. I've attempted to find any sort of coverage in RS, there doesn't appear to be any. Appears PROMO, with no charted singles or anything we'd use for musical notability standards. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources are reliable even though they are in Hebrew and there is also a Hebrew version of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acartonadooopo (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ready corrected the WP:PROMO and removed. Acartonadooopo (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Look like Acartonadooopo (talk · contribs) has COI issue. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ready corrected the WP:PROMO and removed. Acartonadooopo (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any source that can be suitable for this article, just promotional content and profiles. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 12:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:HarukaAmaranth His biography https://theselected.walla.co.il/item/3434789 Acartonadooopo (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: page on a young musician, apparently active only in Israel and Hebrew language so doesn't qualify per the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the English WP. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent coverage in RS. gidonb (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JBW (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siti Zainab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article underwent AfD discussions in July 2023, leading to a "soft delete." However, it was reinstated in December 2023 by the same article creator, confirmed as a sockpuppet. Despite its restoration, the article fails to address the issues that prompted its removal in July 2023, particularly regarding WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Notably, in the Filmography section, nearly all entries list her as uncredited. The one exception where she is credited only features her in a supporting role. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Indonesia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:18, 14 March 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!} 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found her obituary which maybe can help in adding some content to the page https://www.forevermissed.com/siti-zainab/about Hi Bree! (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Comment struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't think of any good reason for this article to stay.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given that she received an in-depth profile in Aneka magazine (well, based on the amount of information, three or four pages - the maximum to expect from such magazines in the 1950s) it is likely that contemporary magazines gave her coverage as well. Unfortunately, most such magazines have not been made available digitally. Also, there was another actress billed simply as "Zainab" active in Indonesia in the 1950s (born in 1933, rather than 1935, and appearing in films such as Tiga Dara; source: Biran, Apa dan Siapa Film Indonesia, 1979), and so finding sources online would be difficult.

Please note that I was canvassed off Wikipedia. As such, I am not !voting. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NACTOR, an individual may be deemed notable if they have played significant roles in numerous noteworthy films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. However, this doesn't apply to this person and the other "Zainab," as they are credited as uncredited in both films they appear in. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never said that she met NACTOR; indeed, as you point out, she did not play significant roles in these films (I'm unfamiliar with Singaporean cinema, and can't speak to the significance or noteworthiness of the films themselves). Those comments pointed to the possibility that she met GNG, if access to older records were possible. Overall, and personally, I'm leaning delete myself. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We have a well presented nomination, and some productive discussion about the possible availability of sources. The other delete argument lacks basis in policy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NACTOR and ANYBIO. If we can't locate sourcing, then we delete. The namespace may be resurrected if sources are found. BusterD (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nica Digerness[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has neither won a medal at an international competition, nor has she won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Neudecker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has neither won a medal at an international competition, nor has he won the U.S. national championships at the senior level. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Walgreens. History remains if someone wants to merge sourced material. Star Mississippi 01:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intercom Plus[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable subject. This is a proprietary software program used internally at a single company. The article currently has no sources, and I can't find any good sources to add; the most I've found is a few brief summaries in company publications and old newspaper articles. It might warrant a mention in the Walgreens article, but it doesn't need its own article. IagoQnsi (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Walgreens, some secondary mentions to be verifiable but not independently notable from Walgreens. Some coverage in Computerworld [27] and this College of William and Mary case study [28]. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:36, 25 March 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 possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article is completely unsourced. Shadow311 (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per A412 -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ventana Wilderness Alliance[edit]

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

A run of the mill local "cause" organization with little coverage beyond local area. Coverage in broader area sources are trivial, such as "Sykes had become an “attractive nuisance,” said Mike Splain, executive director of the Ventana Wilderness Alliance."

An article on company/organization needs significant, independent, reliable coverage in multiple sources and at least one of those needs to be a regional or national source. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: This article by a California-wide magazine might count as regional significant coverage: [29], but it's an obscure publication. There's lots of information about this group out there, but as nom pointed out it's almost all local, affiliated with the VWA, and/or routine nonprofit listings. The article is well-written and informative, so it would be a shame to delete it, but without better sourcing that might be the only answer. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeirdNAnnoyed:, This is an organization, so NCORP is the stanard to be met. "obscure publication" would likely not pass WP:AUD Graywalls (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Song-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played 31 times for North Korea, which is sufficient based on precedent established here. As such, in my view, this supersedes the lack of WP:SIGCOV, especially when related to a subject from a country that lacks easily accessible trustworthy media and sports coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on that AFD was a redirect, not a 'keep'... Giant Snowman 18:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He hasn't played enough international stats to go to the status of a redirect, nor connected to a tournament. Unfortunately this is a problem with North Korean players. I feel a List of North Korea international footballers could be an option with these loses of names. However on what we have it doesn't pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This problem falls within WP:BIAS, and North Korea is certainly not the only victim here. I agree that such a list page needs to exist. Otherwise, we'll end up with fewer and fewer non-Western footballer pages. Anwegmann (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this previously in a similar AfD. Svartner (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Star Mississippi 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Han Bong-zin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 North Korea World Cup Squad - [30]. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The German article at de:Han Bong-zin has 5 references. Perhaps searching for his Korean name 한봉진 would help. He also worked as a manager after retiring as a player. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those 5 references you are referring to come close to satisfy WP:GNG... Simione001 (talk) 02:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea as per other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 18:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea per @GiantSnowman. Svartner (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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