< April 07	April 09 >

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus appears against the merger Bearian proposed, but if an editor feels a redirect is helpful, that can be done without the history Star Mississippi 02:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack (geometry)[edit]

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

This appears to be a random collection of references that have separately used the title term inconsistently to refer to different shapes, with no depth of content beyond nomenclature. It is more about the name than any one shape, violating WP:NOTDICT. There is no evidence that there is a significant body of geometric research on a single specific shape with this name. My proposed deletion saying the same thing was removed without comment or improvement by the article creator. To which I would add that, to the extent the article is about computer modeling of the Knucklebones pieces, it is not separately notable, does not warrant a separate article, and the title term should not even be redirected to Knucklebones, because it is not an article-worthy topic in geometry any more than computer graphic modeling of any other physical object in the world. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge one into the other: either Knucklebones into Jack (geometry), or vice-versa, per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT; preserving any of this cruft by merging would just add text to a different article that would deserve to be removed. XOR'easter (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can understand the motivation behind the article; it is a semi well-known model in the demoscene community. But this CG and geometrical construct is not nearly as famous as say, the Utah teapot, and does not have the support of multiple in-depth reliable sources as a topic in itself. The article has a good bit of synthesis, too. As this point, it fails WP:GNG. I wouldn't be opposed to a well-referenced sentence or two in Knucklebones, but a merge of the current content won't fly from a verification and due weight point of view. Hence delete. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgbuff (talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> different shapes

It's always the same general shape. There are some details that are sometimes omitted, so there's some variance.

> There is no evidence that there is a significant body of geometric research

That is not a requirement for a wikipedia article. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK

> My proposed deletion was removed without improvement

Incorrect? WP:AGF I improved the article in the same change. The note you added said "You may remove this message if you improve the article." Cgbuff (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "it's always the same shape", which shape? The union of three crossed ellipsoids? The union of three ellipsoids and four balls at some of their ends? The union of three rectangular cuboids? Cylinders? Capsules? Those are all different shapes. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is irrelevant here. That policy is about how Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not, well, a textbook: articles should not have leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colm McLoughlin[edit]

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

Worked on significantly by Mcolm (talk · contribs) , potential self promotion. 4 of the sources are from his employer. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. One good source by definition does not satisfy that test. I've never heard of him until now, but FWIW, we might be distantly related. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Peck[edit]

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

Seems to have been created solely as a reaction to a recent documentary airing where this person is featured in some of the episodes as a perpetrator. This person is listed as an actor and a criminal on the page, but fails WP:ENTERTAINER as an actor, having not had significant roles in multiple notable films. And also seems to fail WP:CRIMINAL given the there is already in-depth coverage of the accusations surrounding him on the Drake Bell and "Quiet on Set" documentary pages (per guidelines: The criminal is question should only be the subject of a Wikipedia article only "where there are no appropriate existing articles"). Additionally, the recent news coverage all seem to relate to the documentary, so there doesn't seem to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:SUSTAINED, either. (Also, not sure, but does the page fail WP:BLP1E?) I note that other criminals (such as Wayne Couzens, who received far more news coverage and has several documentaries dedicated to him) do not have their own WP page. I'm learning! Thanks. WikiMane11 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Crime, Sexuality and gender, California, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This convicted rapist deserves to be broadcasted as a danger to society. 2600:1700:2980:5590:E494:AE3D:17AA:3921 (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Quiet on Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV, where most info is already at, per nom. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a strong contributor to the article, his article should be kept. You can argue that he appeared ONLY in minor roles on television and film, but some - like Scuz on Return of the Living Dead and Pickle Boy on All That - are memorable roles. His role on Return of the Living Dead has nothing to do with the Quiet on Set doc. I cited articles where Peck was mentioned even before 2003. Finally, the argument about Brian Peck not having an article because Wayne Couzens not having an article is flimsy. It seems like a WP:OtherStuffExists argument. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 12:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) Plenty of sources/coverage/whatever. 2) As someone stated above, "This convicted rapist deserves to be broadcasted as a danger to society." —theMainLogan (t•c) 13:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? What makes you believe it's our job to do that? We aren't playing judge, we're building an encyclopedia. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess "building an encyclopedia" includes doing damage control for a convicted child rapist (CONVICTED, so we're not "playing judge")? 2607:9B00:2000:4D00:A61A:3C6C:43F7:A78C (talk) 05:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But Wikipedia isn't an online sex offender's database. It's an encyclopedia? WikiMane11 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This convicted rapist deserves to be broadcasted as a danger to society." This is what I was talking about. it's not our place to do things like this. I agree, however, that "playing judge" was a poor choice of words. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With regard to WP:BLP1E, Mr. Peck is not notable for just one event (the 2003 charge), but rather because of the ongoing controversy regarding that type of event- consensual sex with a 15-year-old resulting in prison. And he may be notable as a Hollywood figure, (not as an actor) but as “the Forrest Gump of Hollywood because he knew everybody" and someone who had many well known supporters after his arrest. 71.230.16.111 (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wayne Couzens was a police officer in the UK. He wasnt famous. The fact you said that this pedo shouldnt have a wikipedia page because some unknown murderer doesnt have one is completely backward. Brian Peck used and abused his power. He sexually assaulted a child. He worked with children and worked in the entertainment industry. He should have a WP page, so people know who he is and can stop him being a danger still. 2A01:4B00:9DE7:7600:B298:D96D:1DB:3A11 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You and possibly other anon editors, please read WP:RGW and WP:ADVOCACY. Wikipedia is a place for documenting information, not for warning the public. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLPE; he is notable for his 2003 charges coupled with ongoing controversy. There are plenty of people who are far less “notable” than Peck but have their own pages, all stubs. I believe that this page has enough sources due to recent press on Peck (as well as the 2003 charges) that this could be anything but a stub.. of course, if it’s not to be deleted. Sugar, Spice, and XX (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:You can argue that his charges are ongoing - especially with him being the subject of some documentaries. However, saying that people who are far less "notable" than Peck have their own Wikipedia page may veer into an WP:OtherStuffExists argument. As I mentioned in my Keep argument, Peck was notable for his minor roles before his controversies. His future notability also veers into WP:Crystal as well, but as it stands - there are a lot of sources that make Peck a notable figure. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it was just the SA conviction then I'd vote delete, but his coverage for his actual job he had did garner non-trivial coverage. Also legitimately baffled by the Gacy fact, but that doesn't play into the notability arguments. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple independent and reliable sources have significant coverage of him, as a criminal, and as a Hollywood personality, an actor and a staff member of productions to satisfy general notability, even if it is a bit weak per the special guidelines for actors or for criminals. Reliable sources have established his notability, possibly due to the juxtaposition. His actions, andHollywood’s willingness to overlook his conviction and keep hiring him being featured in a series do not erase the notability. Edison (talk)<

Comment: (Note: Your signature on this comment has been corrupted.) I just wanted to question the assertion that he passes WP:ENTERTAINER, which states the person must have significant roles in multiple notable productions. The article states that he is best known for being "Scuz" in "Return of the Living Dead" and "Pickle Boy" in "All That" (and that seems to be supported by other editors here). However, I can't find any notable coverage of him for these roles. (A few fan blog interviews for Return of the Living Dead.) "Pickle Boy" appears to have only featured in 11 of "All That"'s 200+ episodes, and from the clips I found, he appeared only for maybe 30 seconds without any dialogue. The rest of his filmography feels padded to me (I've never seen anyone be notable for being a "dialogue coach" or have so many "uncredited" appearances -- was he an extra?). I also can't find any articles that refer to him as a "Hollywood personality". Upon reflection, it seems to me that he's only become notable because of the high profile of his victim. It seems unlikely this page would exist otherwise, and the fact that this it didn't exist before last month seems to support this. It's fine if this article should be kept, but it feels like it should be done for the right reasons, and at the moment there hasn't been any arguments that support that. Is this person a notable criminal, per WP:CRIMINAL? And what is covered on this page that isn't already covered elsewhere on WP? WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the became infamous due to the documentary, he was prosecuted and found guilty of what the documentary stated, its a matter of judicial fact. As someone important to many shows in a producer/coach role and a now notable figure keeping the article would be in the best interest of all. Josearmado1998 (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry for getting drawn into these comments. I guess I'm a little perplexed: There seems to be an attempt to inflate this person's achievements? If this wasn't the page of a criminal, I'd suspect the person themselves was editing it! :) It appears he was an associate producer on three independently produced direct-to-DVD films. How is this "many shows"? And when has "dialogue coach" been notable enough for a page to exist? (I also just noted, while looking at these films, that editors have added him to the cast, as if he was a main cast member!) Apologies again, but it's just interesting to see. WikiMane (TP2001) (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Latif[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable BLP -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aunva6: care to explain why you think she doesn't meets WP:NCRICKET ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

only one test, no significant coverage. fails WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of sourcing other than database listings and I don't see anything extra. No sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[[WP:OTHERSTUFF covers that. just because other articles exist, does not mean that this or those are notable. WP:NRV is clear that notability is only because of significant coverage. there is not significant coverage in this case.

-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OSE is not a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates. Robo^Cric Let's chat 21:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

But there is criteria for a AFC for BLP only for full member cricketer says that he/she should be played at least Test and ODI. And it is full filled for AFC. It should be Keep. Significant coverage doesn't matter when he/she played at least one Test. In that case WP:IAR/WP:5P5 applicable. And should be avoid WP:NRV. Here WP:OTHERSTUFF avoided. But it look forward it. Axjuo (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPLS SUD JIT Why have you voted twice in this discussion? Please remove the second comment. Robo^Cric Let's chat 19:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Are you voting the deletion of this BLP due to insufficient sources or because the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCRICKET? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are not insufficient sources and insufficient notability are effectually the same? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She could meet notability, but we don't have extensive sourcing talking about the individual. No newspaper articles about her, no news items, no books that talk about her. Beyond confirming she exists, we don't have any description of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The absence of references does not warrant deletion if the BLP meets the relevant criteria WP:NCRICKET, which it does in this case. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 05:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She categories in full member Nation. She played Test as well as ODIs. All of Pakistan women's Test cricketers have Wiki page. MPLS SUD JIT (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played 4 ODIs and 1 Test for a full-member nation, passes WP:NCRIC. You know, it is struggling to find coverage about Pakistani biographies in online English sources, specially in a period where Pakistani online cricket portals were not available. To qualify international stage, a player had to anyway be the top performer in domestic cricket. So here WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail here, as coverage probably existed at that time in offline sources. At present, even coverage about emerging domestic cricketers are also available because of the availability of cricket portals like cricketpakistan.com.pk. The amendment of the WP:NSPORTS was made to avoid people making micro-stubs of cricketers who marginally pass the criteria by playing one or two domestic matches. But this is not the case here and so at least I'll go for WP:IAR/WP:5P5 if written criteria are still not considered to be met. Robo^Cric Let's chat 04:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCRICK only says that significant coverage is likely to exist. a few databases do not seem significant. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pakistan women Test cricketers biography pages like Mariam Butt, Khursheed Jabeen, Uzma Gondal, Zehmarad Afzal, Deebah Sherazi, Nazia Nazir, Muqudos Khan, Shazia Hassan, Asma Farzand were based on two sources i.e. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive. But the biographies are still exist. So it should be keep. And I agreed with RoboCric. Axjuo‬ (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played women's cricket at Test level, the highest level of women's international cricket. Nominating Test cricketers (be they men or women) is rather short-sighted, by reaching the pinnacle of their sport, not only are they inherently notable, but we should be seeking to expand, not eliminate such articles. AA (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is highly likely that an international cricketer from this period will likely have WP:GNG passing sourcing in offline or Pakistani language sourcing that isn't accessible. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've yet to see any, do you know of any sources? if you can find some, iI will gladly withdraw this AfD. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 19:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aunva6 I've come across the book Unveiling Jazbaa: A History Of Pakistan Women's Cricket by Aayush Puthran and am having it delivered to my local library. Hoping it will prove a good source and provide sufficient notability for a number of Pakistani women cricketers. Will update when I've given it a read. CarnivalSorts (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, please keep us updated. if it's got information on the other AFD's i'll withdraw those. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aunva6, Rugbyfan22 has already mentioned that those aren't accessible. As I have said before, and I'm saying again WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail here. Robo^Cric Let's chat 19:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
common sense tells me that if I can't even find that sources exist, then as far as I know they don't. we're just assuming they do, without being able to actually find any. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of mentioning those name, who played Test for Pakistan women's team, these BLP has no sources, but they still remain. So those information are not accessible. As RoboCric said twice. Let it be remain as it is.(Keep it). MPLS SUD JIT (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking a stance on this particular case, but common sense tells me that if I can't even find that sources exist, then ... they don't – that is not true, and I would say especially not so when one has not looked in the appropriate places (i.e. we do not have any access to the sources that would have covered this person, but know that they are "likely" to exist. E.g. as a made-up example, if we have an American athlete, and I don't know where to look for American sources, and so I look in Australian newspaper archives and find nothing, does that confirm that no sources exist on said American athlete? No!) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V and WP:RSC indicate that if the source is largely inaccessible, and not shown to exist, they may as well not. WP:PUBLISH indicates that sources must be accessible to at least some editors. If you or any other editor can access these sources and cite them, then i will gladly withdraw. else it is just a claim of inherent notability -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, no. RSC is an essay. And the fact that a small group of, at best, five American and English(?) users have looked in non-Pakistani resources for sources about a Pakistani person does not, in any way, demonstrate that coverage is unlikely to exist. Stating that WP:PUBLISH requires sources be accessible is a misinterpretation; it says that it must be available to someone, not some editor. The vast majority of existing historical media in the world is not available to this select group of five Wikipedia editors. WP:V requires that the person is verifiable, i.e., that we know this person existed, which we do, as we have reliable sources such as CricketArchive confirming. I know very little about cricket, and as such am not !voting, but I note we must use common sense. In my opinion, if someone is highly accomplished and meets WP:NSPORT (which it appears Latif does?) and we have not looked at any sources from a country of 250 million, where this person achieved prominence, the rules do not need to be tightly enforced if in the best interest of the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't a more obvious solution here be to restore the redirect from the first AfD? Which was removed very recently without the addition of any real sourcing. A note can easily be added to the page it redirects to to summarise what we currently know about her there. Can't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine as far as I am concerned. I just don't think the subject is notable enough to warrant their own article. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a consensus to Keep this article but it appears that discussion participants aren't aware that notability in sports requires GNG sources and isn't based on where or for whom the article subject played. The previous AFD was closed as a redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, would that be acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect and protect - I think this is headed in the same direction as the previous AfD no matter what. The previous redirect cited the issue of SNG v GNG and it's happening again here. To avoid it, a new article must go through the draft process hence the protection recommendation. 2001:8003:512D:C201:2535:51A8:8FA7:B27C (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) — 2001:8003:512D:C201:2535:51A8:8FA7:B27C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IP, how is your first-ever edit to comment at this discussion while examining wiki-terminology like "SNG v GNG"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you realize IP address assignments change, right? WP:HUMAN -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an essay; generally I find it suspicious when editors are making arguments like this with no other information or history to their record, as it oftentimes is by a sock. If this IP can prove they've edited constructively before then that's fine; but otherwise I don't see this as being worthy of full weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11: Proceed with concerns as the IP in his second edit prodded an article. We can't deny the possibilities that any user can votestack by logging out or an IP turns out to be a sock, though I'm not accusing any specific user. I think the IP's vote shouldn't be given importance. Robo^Cric Let's chat 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoboCric: Agree. The IP is an obvious WP:DUCK. AA (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the problem is we can't accuse any specific user because of such small number of edits. But I think the vote should be removed. Robo^Cric Let's chat 22:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

they're not really votes. the sysops can take the history into account when deciding consensus. Lets Assume Good Faith. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 16:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I've a book on the way that I know talks about her, but will need to read it to see what coverage there is. Will update with what's in it. CarnivalSorts (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unveiling Jazbaa: A History Of Pakistan Women's Cricket?? Robo^Cric Let's chat 03:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, hoping for it to arrive this week. CarnivalSorts (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sword Art Online characters#Yuuki. I see a consensus to Redirect this article. Content will reside in the page history if there is anything worth Merging. There was more than one Redirect proposed but this one seems more in-line with the subject of the article and I don't want to prolong this discussion any longer that it already is. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuuki (Sword Art Online Character)[edit]

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

Article was barely improved since the January AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuuki (Sword Art Online). Kotaku source were the only good one here, but it doesn't really discuss the character at all. The added sources doesn't really help WP:GNG either and it was barely improved like what people said at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 18. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Anime and manga. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sword Art Online characters#Yuuki, per the last discussion. A merge was already performed on whatever content existed for this character in terms of coverage, so another merge shouldn't be required. A simple redirect will do. λ NegativeMP1 22:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I wouldn't say that Kotaku doesn't discuss the character, she is mentioned a few times. Granted, there is a lof plot summary, but a bit of analysis too: Like with the classic Beowulf, Yuuki finds her meaning and immortality in the written word. For her, having her name (and those of her soon-to-pass-away friends) on a virtual wall for all eternity is proof that she existed.. Granted, by itself this is not enough to warrant keeping the article, but it is not nothing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever it is they need to show the WP:THREE anyway. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. That is a user essay, not policy or even a guideline. There is no mandatory "needs three reliable sources" mandate on Wikipedia that is the sole determinant of whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted. It's kind of amazing how frequently editors cite this user essay as if it is policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Or" needs more secondary sources for it pass the GNG threshold. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two would be enough for me, given that SIGCOV asks for multiple sources, and two is multiple. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Kinda. Return this to draft space, restore the original redirect. It's a split of the history of the original article which is actually at Yuuki (Sword Art Online). On being reverted there, the draft author worked under another name and pushed for AfC to accept it. This was misleading at best. This name is incorrect regardless, so just get this out of mainspace. -- ferret (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't know WHAT to do with this. This actually seems to be the original article, which the user unilaterally moved from mainspace to userspace while attempting to dodge the previous AFD? Then recreated it again. And when that got AFD'd, had this moved back to mainspace. Regardless of the split history, redirect, and maybe partial block The dogcat from it. -- ferret (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the AfC user who moved it to a different name and tried to help the user [1]. Anyway, maybe leave the article as is and finish the AfD but salt the article if it ended up being merged as a result. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret Author The dogcat tries to canvass at other user's talk pages. [2] [3] GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect Apparent WP:G4. Or just speedy delete if it's a copy-paste move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This exceeds the G4 bar, @Jclemens also said the same thing on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2024_March_18&diff=1214640616&oldid=1214539038 The dogcat (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect based on the existing sources, as noted by the arguments of other commenters and keeping in mind the previous AfD. I don't know if @User:Geardona would be willing to share their thoughts here or not.Historyday01 (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThoughts, if the original article is identical, Ok? I don't know that, I can't see it I saw it mentioned in the DRV but not wasn't sure if it was affirmative. Im not super into the anime area, so as for notability, im borderline (In summary: I see some coverage, but meh I know how eloquent am I. See Piotrus' comment) Thanks @Historyday01 for the ping, always willing to share my thoughts on something. Geardona (talk to me?) 14:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geardona Please do not work AfC for areas where you cannot judge notability. -- ferret (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a little bit of a stretch for me, you know bold and such, gonna stick in my area. Geardona (talk to me?) 14:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit in the borderline as well, but I'd also be fine with redirect. WP:A&M/ORS is always a useful source for anime-related articles, in combination with what is listed on WP:RSPSOURCES, and using an editor's best judgment. Historyday01 (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found sources that mention Yuuki that maybe can help us, I found them on the reliable websites mentioned. https://www.cbr.com/sword-art-online-characters-asuna-can-cant-beat/ and https://www.fandompost.com/2020/01/24/sword-art-online-ii-complete-collection-blu-ray-anime-review/ and https://www.fandompost.com/2020/01/24/sword-art-online-ii-complete-collection-blu-ray-anime-review/ and https://www.fandompost.com/2016/01/23/sword-art-online-ii-set-4-limited-edition-blu-ray-anime-review/ and https://comicbook.com/anime/news/sword-art-online-yuuki-return-war-of-underworld-anime/ They were only the sources I could find. @DaniloDaysOfOurLives, @PeaceNT, @Piotrus, @Historyday01, @Swordman97, @SuperSkaterDude45, I recommend that the article has the correct title Yuuki (Sword Art Online). Thanks The dogcat (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The dogcat: Not that I'm against preservation of this article but I will comment that Comic Book Resources isn't really seen as a reliable source to demonstrate notability. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperSkaterDude45, And are the other sites mentioned reliable? The dogcat (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe Fandompost is a reliable source? I see no staff page, about page, editorial policy, editor in chief details, or staff credentials. It appears to be essentially a group blog, primarily written by one individual. Like CBR, Comicbook.com is see as a poor situational source. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, Why is it mentioned here WP:A&M/ORS The dogcat (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that. I couldn't find their about page, seems Beveridge is the editor in chief, but I personally would see this as a fairly weak source. The bulk of the contributors are inactive and there's no editorial policy. Either way, these are not SIGCOV. One is a mere 2-3 sentences in a listicle, the other two are plot retelling. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, There are people who think that CBR and Comicbook.com are reliable sources The dogcat (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good for them. Both WP:A&M/ORS and WP:VG/S caution against their use. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think in some instances, CBR and Comicbook CAN be reliable sources (especially if they actually analyze a series), but CBR, like ScreenRant does those atrocious list articles, which are bad. I think ComicBook does the same thing. In terms of Fandompost, it really is pretty weak source... Historyday01 (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, @Ferret, [4],[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], Some of these sources may help. The dogcat (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, these cosplay blurbs do not represent sigcov at all. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku is reliable but the article does not have WP:SIGCOV for Yuuki. Animate Times is listed as reliable by A:ORS. But like ferret notes, cosplay blurbs don't prove notility - likewise, I am sure we can find a bunch of Japanese (and not only) reviews of Yuuki figurines - that won't prove anything, merchandise exists as does fan art (of which cosplplay is a part of) for a ton of stuff that is otherwise non-notable. Btw, I started a discussion to add fandompost to unreliable list (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Fandompost). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, [10], [11], [12]. [13], [14], I found more sources that may be able to help. The dogcat (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. Many of these are unreliable, some even WP:USERG. Almost all are just plot summaries. You need indepth significant coverage that discusses the character itself, independent of just relaying the events of the show. (You don't need to ping me, I have the AFD watchlisted) -- ferret (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, [15], [16] [17] Is this source helpful? Sorry if I sent Ping, there are times that after days it is unadded from the monitoring list The dogcat (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No (unreliable, USERG), no (reliable, but still an episode plot retelling), no. (unreliable, BLOG) -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], More sources according to reliable sources of Anime in French. The dogcat (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all passing mentions in relation to brief announcements about a side story. I think you're really failing to understand the concept of WP:SIGCOV. -- ferret (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, At least you can see the source 20 and 22 talk a lot about the character plus Asuna's character also has some sources that don't talk about the character at all which was also discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Asuna_(Sword_Art_Online) And another thing may be that FandomPost is reliable as mentioned here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources#Fandompost The dogcat (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, no more pings. These sources are not significant in-depth coverage of the character. At this point if you haven't found a smoking gun, you're not going to convince me. The sources you're presenting are getting worse and worse. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the same way. The pings are not convincing me either and I'm not going to change my position. Historyday01 (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References 5, 6, and 7 clear the notability bar: the two Kotaku references are by different authors, and the third is comicbook.com. All are fine RS'es for fictional characters. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. I do think the sources need to be brushed up and improved. Historyday01 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe these, especially 6, represent real in-depth sigcov of the character outside of an immediate plot setting. -- ferret (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, @Jclemens, [23], [24], These sources that mention Yuuki may also help. The dogcat (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks... but I don't need further convincing. Once we hit the notability bar, other sources can be used to flesh out the page. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens, Well, okay, but the sources were for the other editors, for example @Geardona, @Historyday01. The dogcat (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I said earlier and agree with Jclemens that once the notability bar is reached, other sources can be used to expand the page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, my position to keep is very borderline (so a weak keep I guess?)... and I would also be fine with a redirect. Historyday01 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, I have found some pages in reliable sources of Anime in French, can you review them?. The dogcat (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to share such sources, do so here. I'm not going to review anything about this topic on my talk page or anywhere else but in this deletion discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[25], Here I found another source on CBR, I don't know if it's useful but at least it describes the character. The dogcat (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[26], [27], [28], [29], More mentions of the character. The dogcat (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not looking for mentions. We're looking for in-depth significant coverage focused specifically on the character. -- ferret (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user tells us that rankings/lists can contribute to notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAsuna_%28Sword_Art_Online%29&diff=1201181827&oldid=1201106443 The dogcat (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Keep Agree @Jclemens and other sources, I consider that the notability is met but the article should be moved to Yuuki (Sword Art Online) so as not to have 2 article stories with different names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:103E:13:3D38:EDB7:BF90:AE46:7DD5 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
The above should be struck as canvassed meatpuppetry, per Special:Diff/1217108720. If @The dogcat: cannot cease with meatpuppetry and canvassing, a block may be in order. They have already been warned repeatedly. -- ferret (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret, If you want I can delete my brother's vote since I don't know how to cross out The dogcat (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sword Art Online: Whilst there are some notable characters from SAO, this isn't one of them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added sources that give us details and mentions of Yuuki. Watch up. The dogcat (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Asuna's Afd, a user explains to us that mentions can also help with notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAsuna_%28Sword_Art_Online%29&diff=1201181827&oldid=1201106443 The dogcat (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ It seems that it is not that strong but at least the rankings/listincles contribute to the notability according to @Satellizer opinion here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FAsuna_%28Sword_Art_Online%29&diff=1201181827&oldid=1201106443 I also found another source that talks about Yuuki, [30] The dogcat (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Dream Focus it may meet the notability so I agree. The dogcat (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Historyday01, @Ferret, @Piotrus, [31], I finally found a reliable source that talks a lot about Yuuki. The dogcat (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing about the character here. It's three quotes and plot retelling. -- ferret (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can continue reading because if it talks everything about Yuuki. The dogcat (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you here as well. I no longer wish to be pinged here. I'll let other users speak on this topic instead. Historyday01 (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through this and I don't see anything that goes beyond a plot summary or trivial comments. Feel free to ping me with a quote and I'll review it, but the quality of this source does not inspire confidence. We need academic research or good journalism, and what we have is blog/social media-level content for the most part. The best I see is Yuuki, who desperately tried to survive, found the meaning of life, the meaning of life. It's her typical answer, and her words are impressive. and I don't think this is usable (setting aside machine translation half-gibberish results). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep https://www.cbr.com/sword-art-online-characters-every-fan-loves-get-too-much-hate/ Her tragic story gets fans emotionally invested and attached. But more than just being a sad story, her tale is one of living life to the fullest even when in critical condition and it's for this inspiring reason that she's liked by fans. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/12/sword-art-online-finishes-strong-with-a-powerfully-human-tale/ gives out information about the character, not just plot points. All the coverage considered, its enough to convince me this character passes the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valnet source like CBR doesn't help notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Redirection and Keep. For all of the dozens of sources brought up here, it is surprising that no further improvement has been done on the article since its nomination. I'm not encouraging REFSPAM but if there are any reliable sources, they should be added as it is unlikely (no, make that impossible) that participants will go through all of the references included in this discussion. It seems like spaghetti being thrown at the wall to see what sticks. It's overwhelming for editors to evaluate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. This article was AfDd once and got changed to a redirect, and should not have been brought back without substantial improvements. Would also like to note that The dogcat has practically been bludgeoning this AfD, and I would advise them to refrain from continuing to do so, since it's just making users more annoyed than anything else. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pokelego999, Hello, it's not that it bothers the users, but if it really bothers me, I won't bother you, but I will add comments if I find more sources. Thank you. The dogcat (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There's a lot of coverage, but it's all a mix of trivial mentions and/or unreliable sources. I'm just not seeing the significant coverage in multiple reliable, secondary, independent sources—all at once—that WP:GNG requires. Woodroar (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source can help because it is beyond trivial mentions. https://www.cbr.com/sword-art-online-characters-every-fan-loves-get-too-much-hate/ The dogcat (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bringing up the same source over and over again. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBR (Comic Book Resources) is generally unreliable post-2016 (see WP:VG/S) and with only 2 paragraphs about the character this source is absolutely trivial. Valnet pumping out junk article after junk article like this is exactly why they're unreliable. Woodroar (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBR situation is more iffy than that, but it can be used in articles. Either way, the notability it provides is iffy at best, and for an article like this it doesn't really help that issue. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't even say "iffy". Per WP:VALNET, In general, these sites should not be used to demonstrate notability outside of periods they were considered reliable or prior to being purchased by Valnet, due to concerns over undue weight and content farming. Valnet is really just the worst kind of content farm. Woodroar (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. https://www.fandompost.com/2016/01/23/sword-art-online-ii-set-4-limited-edition-blu-ray-anime-review/ It's not that I want to bash but this FandomPost source describes Yuuki several times. The dogcat (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you already mentioned this source above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Despite the bludgeoning, I will state firstoff I don't hold the same opinion of my esteemed colleagues regarding Valnet: if a source from there is saying something substantial I feel it can be used. However, what's there isn't substantial, and what's here isn't either. I don't feel any of the sources combined satisfy notability.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - When this was examined during an AFD just a few months ago, the current sources were examined, further sources were searched for, and none of them were convincing enough for this character to pass the WP:GNG. A multitude of trivial mentions, plot summaries, and brief mentions in discussions of the series as a whole do not add up to demonstrate actual notability, and spamming every google hit mentioning the character, no matter the quality or actual usability as source in an article, is not doing anything to convince me otherwise. Rorshacma (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorschacma. The third party coverage isn't substantial enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and redirect is a fine WP:ATD. Would also accept small amounts of merging at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 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 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima A. Rowshan[edit]

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 20:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and Iran. Ladsgroup^overleg 20:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies GNG. Bhivuti45 (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find any reliable source about him. There is only mention of name in tagesshau Ladsgroup^overleg 17:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the references 7,8 & 16. The Donaueschinger Musiktage is not a Tagesschau. It's recognized as one of the most prestigious contemporary classical music festivals. Sofreakso (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria of GNG is different for contemporary classical composers. The name has been mentioned in academic essays. A commission by Donaueschinger Musiktage also make it meets GNG. There are lots of newspaper coverage regarding "Alamut" and also lots of newspaper coverage in other languages, but the name spelling seems different in some of them. Sofreakso (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per fairly strong consensus with respect to WP:NMUSIC. It does not matter what the genre is; in fact, many new genres have been deleted since 2007. In order to argue for exceptions, you have to show examples. I've done thousands of AfDs, including hundreds of musical ones, and I'm unaware of any genre-based exception. If the consensus has changed, then we need dozens of folks to chime in. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque[edit]

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

(Not to be confused with the extant Gayebi Mosque in Balaganj Upazila).

All the information about Ghayebi/Gayebi/Gayibi Dighi (a pond) in the two cited sources is: "Simultaneously a good number of sites were explored. These include ..., Gayebi Dighi Mound, ... [in a list of more than a dozen sites]" and "Gayibi Dighi at Bara Thakuri (a stone inscription of 400 years old, now preserved in the Bangladesh national museum, has been discovered from this dighi)". Neither of the sources mention a mosque.

The author of the article asserted, "There are enough sources on the web if searched in Bengali". That is contradicted by my experience. The only other reliable source I could find in any language is another brief mention of the inscription.[32] With zero reliable sources about the mosque (if there ever was one), the topic fails WP:GNG. It is unsuitable for merging or redirection, let alone for a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 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!} 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there may be some sources available in Bengali language. It says an ancient mosque and has a page on the Bengali language Wikipedia. Bhivuti45 (talk) 10:57, 30 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) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion which is typically what would happen here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 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 List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Earle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test isn't in listing acting roles, it's in the volume and depth of GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them and their roles that can be shown to support the article with. But the references here aren't GNG-building coverage: it's referenced mainly to unreliable sources (gossip blogs, press releases from theatres self-announcing the casts of their own plays, etc.) that are not support for notability, and the only GNG-worthy citations in the mix (two cites to Now) both just briefly glance off Sam's existence while being about his father, and thus aren't helping to establish Sam's notability at all.
It also warrants note that this was just recreated in the past few days after having previously spent several years as a mere redirect to a character list for the TV series that constitutes his most potentially notable role, but even redirecting an actor to a TV series isn't normally the preferred way to handle articles about actors either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 25 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) 16:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 25 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) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER IMO.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I'm surprised there's not SIGCOV, because he appeared in 71 episodes of Canada's biggest dramedy of my life. Has anyone attempted to find find more obscure sources? Can we redirect instead of deletion? Bearian (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters: I searched but found only brief mentions or trivial coverage. S0091 (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'll just add for the nominator, there are TV series on Wikipedia that have an article for every single episode, not just "notable" ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Mansion Mystery[edit]

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

With all due respect to the show, scrolling through the available sources and my searches, I was unable to find significant coverage on why this specific episode is notable. Some of the sources listed do not even mention the episode at all – the archive available of the MediaInsight article mentions neither the show nor the episode at all.

Wilkins' AV Club article is not unique – AVClub.com has reviewed other Gravity Falls episodes. Same with Rotoscopes. It also didn't break any series or network records, titles and differentiators which support the inclusion of other episodes such as Weirdmageddon and Not What He Seems. So I'm not seeing how Northwest Mansion Mystery is a specifically notable episode of Gravity Falls. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disney. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There seems no reason to keep this. Fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING IMO.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:24, 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 due to total absence of reliable sources that might indicate sufficient notability. El_C 14:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Anastasia Horne[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Many film parts but all seem to be minor roles. Unreferenced and searches reveal very little. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Theatre, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENTERTAINER IMO.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No sources even after search = no notability. --Викидим (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kids Incorporated, where she had a supporting role. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is not even mentioned there. This redirect will be very mysterious to the reader. Викидим (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sponsored sports venues[edit]

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

Incredibly long list, yet still quite incomplete. Naming rights for sports venues are the norm, not the exception. This is like having an article called List of every single sports venue in the world. Few incoming links. The concept is already covered at the Naming rights article. 162 etc. (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Sports, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST as the venues with corporate naming rights are not covered as a group. Frank Anchor 01:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Naming rights : Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as the entries are not discussed as a grouping in secondary sources. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTADVERTISING. No point redirecting to Naming rights, as that article doesn't cover much apart from some US-centric examples. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:18, 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!} 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hristijan Pop Antoski[edit]

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

Young footballer from a smaller league, barely started his career. I don't see any chance of getting coverage to meet any guideline, and thus I don't see draftification as an option either. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – References I found regarding this boy: 1 (radio podcast), 2 (signing a contract with the "Lions"), 3 (leaving Pobeda and moved to Macedonia Gjorche Petrov), and 4 (his team became champion of Probeda). The first and fourth look good, but we need attention from people who can read Macedonian language. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Comes across as a case of WP:TOOSOON to me. Anwegmann (talk) 21:40, 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!} 20:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gauteng U/16 Women's Development League[edit]

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

A regional soccer tournament for children. I don't see this as having any chance of passing bars for significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a youth league category that I think this fits under. I do understand if you feel it won't get enough traction. The league is in it's second season and I just wanted to keep a database on it as it grows. Mcwamcwa (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per u14 discussion. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth football tournaments generally aren't notable, and this isn't an exception to that. The winner of this can be listed at Gauteng Women's Development League, but no other content needs to be merged into that article in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Youth women's football competition without any established notability. Svartner (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth women's non-professional football. Zero notability. Anwegmann (talk) 02:21, 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!} 20:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Gauteng U/14 Women's Development League[edit]

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

A regional soccer tournament for children. I don't see this as having any chance of passing bars for significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a youth league category that I think this fits under. I do understand if you feel it won't get enough traction. The league is in it's second season and I just wanted to keep a database on it as it grows. Mcwamcwa (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there's nothing here that can't be included in the Gauteng Women's Development League article, seeing as there has only been a single season. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth football tournaments generally aren't notable, and this isn't an exception to that. The winner can be listed at Gauteng Women's Development League, but no other content needs to be merged into that article in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Youth women's football competition without any established notability. Svartner (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth women's non-professional football. Zero notability. Anwegmann (talk) 02:20, 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. If an editor wants this article userfied or draftified, contact the closer (me) or make a request at WP:REFUND.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignacio Sáez[edit]

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

Doesn't yet meet WP:NPROF; the prize listed is a routine announcement of a grant award by the funder; newspaper articles are likely to be PR-driven churnalism for some of the work. Scopus H-index of 13 in the highly-cited field of Neuroscience implies that there isn't a large body of highly-cited work from Sáez. Klbrain (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Spain, and New York. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the newspaper articles are legitimate journalism and contribute to establishing notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, the newspaper articles are either interviews or sensationalistic press. The peer community has clearly received the studies as less impactful, given the relatively low citations of these works. Does not fulfill WP:NPROF. Broc (talk) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy per the PROF test. The consensus has been that, absent extraordinary number and coverage of reviews, an associate professor is not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The consensus is that associate professors are not automatically notable. Sometimes they are, more often they are not. They do not have any higher bar than other academics; we do not need extraordinary evidence that we would not demand of someone with a different rank. We cannot use their rank to determine whether they are notable or not; we must look at other criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. With a low publication record and no notable awards there is no significant evidence that his peers consider him notable yet. He may well be in a few years, but it is too soon. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P*[edit]

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

No indication that this developmental language has been written about by any independent sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has existed since 2013 and was likely created in COI (name of creator is similar to language's author) and has remained mainly the same PERMASTUB. I've tried to find any reliable sources that might verify any information, but I've only been able to conclude that the language is simply not notable. Language's homepage ([33]) last had an update in 2014, and the GitHub last had a commit in 2020. I don't think any sources existed for it then, and I seriously doubt any will exist for it now or in the future; it's been superseded (or simply ignored) by ReactJS, Angular 2, Vue.js, and numerous others (all of which are much more notable). WhoAteMyButter (🌷_talk│🌻^contribs) 20:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article does not have an independent source. It does not meet WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to have any independent sourcing available or have been a notable language, although search results are buried by the P programming language. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:13, 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!} 20:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luigy van Jaarsveld[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) 19:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of coverage, but not sure there's enough to warrant a WP:GNG pass here, no suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 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!} 20:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roderique Victor[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Namibia national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:17, 8 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) 19:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of Namibia national rugby union players Lots of coverage, but not sure any of it is enough to show a WP:GNG pass, suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 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!} 20:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefani Iotova[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 Bulgarian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. I found 1 and 2 and not much else. She is the daughter of Velko Yotov, so there might be some more out there. JTtheOG (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:N is not inherited except in very special cases. --Artene50 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No enough SIGCOV. I was considering for the sake of WP:ATD, redirect to Bulgaria women's national football team since she was a member! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and does not have enough international appearances to supersede that. Anwegmann (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Contributor892z (talk) 21:31, 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 Wicked Tinkers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banger for Breakfast[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing much to suggest that this album meets the notability criteria for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Scotland. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked Tinkers: Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wicked Tinkers. I found no evidence that the album is independently notable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:11, 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 Draftify.‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Total Gaming[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG Particleshow22 (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable youtube-figure. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's what I found, they look promising, if someone more familiar with Indian RS could interpret whether these are any good, I would appreciate it. News18 [34], The Indian Express [35], Sportstar [36], MissMalini.com [37] ~ A412 ^talk! 17:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the article does not meet WP:GNG, the sources found by A412 could improve the article's notability. A few grammar corrections to be made aswell. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: I'd say 40 million YouTube subscribers is pretty notable, but definitely needs more improvement. Someone with 40 million YouTube subscribers surely has a lot more to be said about them than one game and a face reveal. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The subject of this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as outlined in News18 [38],. Numerous reliable sources have covered Total Gaming's extensively, demonstrating their significance in Gaming.These citations demonstrate the subject's enduring relevance and importance, warranting the retention of this article on Wikipedia.Overall, deletion of this article would diminish the availability of valuable information on a notable subject and contradict Wikipedia's mission to provide comprehensive coverage of notable topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aafaq Ashraf (talk • contribs) 16:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he has been covered extensively maybe you can add that information to the Wikipedia article. Right now there's barely anything. Sadustu Tau (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Maybe he's notable, but the article is shockingly bad and poorly made. It needs more work and it feels like this was very rushed. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 06:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify If the subject has 40 million+ subscribers there's definitely notability there, but this needs much more development beyond mentioning he plays one game and is written in a non-standard manner. Nate • (chatter) 17:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify He is notable but the article is not ready for the main space. If anyone improves it then it can stay, he is one of the most popular YouTubers from India with over 40 million subscribers. He is notable. Grabup (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Ragbeer[edit]

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

Subject is only known for having a popular social media account post about their music (which was paid for), and has only received coverage for that one thing, which was a month ago. There does not appear to be sustained coverage aside from that one event, nor does it seem like the subject is truly notable outside that one event (i.e. there is no coverage or reviews of the actual music/album, aside from brief mentions when describing the one social media post). Some of the sources used for the subject, such as obituaries and graduation listings, are not suitable to be used as sources on Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Underclass King (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: being re-shared on a social media platform is a far cry from notability, and the article contains no other real info about this person. InDimensional (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I believe Julie is notable enough for wikipedia 92.24.152.78 (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NMG and WP:1E. Q ^{T C} 02:49, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logending Beach[edit]

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

No claim of notability. This place appears to exist, but it is just a small bit of coastline in Indonesia. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources with a cursory search. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Geography, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This page is well developed in the Bahasa Indonesia language. There are a couple articles on people who drowned at the beach, and the best source is from the government, but I'm also not great at source analysis from Indonesia. Also more than a cursory search is needed because you'll need to search local newspapers, major search engines do not do a good job of that. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NATFEAT a named natural feature is presumably notable. There is enough substantive coverage in local sources for a Wikipedia article. I just added a reference to such a source.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Natfeat. Desertarun (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph P. Hughes[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability he was a Pastor who preached and who died. That is all the sources tell us. Searches reveal a mass of answers, but it is a common name and trying to find the right Ralph Hughes is impossible. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG just a man doing his job. Theroadislong (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Prominent local person perhaps, but nothing to elevate him from any other person in the same position. I'm only seeing routine local sourcing and I can't find much else. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Without notable reliable sources, this fails WP:GNG.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sources beyond his local area. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald B. Rice Sr.[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Assumed that notability is supposed to relate to his father but notability is not inherited. Fails WPGNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without more sources fails WP:GNG.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. He was mayor of moderate-sized city, which garnered local coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only local coverage. ^Queenof_Hearts 04:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have enough independent sources. Bradelykooper (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SK1, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tao Huang (general)[edit]

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

All existing sources are offline which can't prove notability as I have found nothing literary in Google Books search. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and History. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Offline sources are valid for notability. It's not surprising that they're tricky to find on Google Books, since they appear broadly non-English. There are articles on Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese wikis.— Moriwen (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims in Google books search are just mentions only. If you are so confident, please pull WP:THREE from GOOGLE BOOKS with WP:SIGCOV. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Moriwen. Mccapra (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources at Google Books [39] Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims in Google books search are just mentions only. If you are so confident, please pull WP:THREE from GOOGLE BOOKS with WP:SIGCOV. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep asking me for three sources for every one of these on the basis of an essay you like I'm afraid I'll take all day and I do have other things to do. However I randomly pulled one of the sources on google books and it, in fact, has significant coverage. I'd suggest, if you are going to mass AfD notable figures from the Three Kingdoms period, that you be a bit more careful in your literature review before proposing deletion. [40] Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources available to build a proper article from. There's no real deletion rationale here. SportingFlyer T·C 00:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No deletion rationale. Offline sources are perfectly valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. I'm happily withdrawing this AfD nomination. What I needed to know Necrothesp explained as "Offline sources are perfectly valid" despite identifiers were mostly missing. This AfD will help me. Thanks to all. Please close the AfD. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:35, 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. If you wish to pursue a Merge with another article, you can take that on by starting with a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tufa Shujineng[edit]

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

All existing sources are offline which can't prove notability as I have found nothing literary in Google Books search. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Asia, and China. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to Tufa Shujineng's Rebellion as target page The article needs a lot of work but contemporary sources exist. Simonm223 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please demonstrate with WP:THREE.Google Books sources provide nothing to support it's existence. !Vote is not vote if you can't demonstrate the notability. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. One, two, three, four, five. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there is also this doctoral thesis - and I know that PhD level theses are a debated point within our discussion of academic RSes but it still contributes toward this being a minor notable figure. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there are also 14 references to the figure in Google Scholar if you use the simplified Chinese spelling rather than the pingyin. Simonm223 (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you propose Merge, how can you !vote as Keep? Contradictory? Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying we should Keep this one and merge the other into it. I'm sorry if I was unclear with my intention. Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found. I’m neutral on the proposed merger. Mccapra (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - those who are in Keep !vote, please have a look at this and if that doesn't comply then it's a shame. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't follow your reasoning here. I think all the keep !votes are aware he's included in the classic of Chinese literature Sanguoyanyi. He's also included in several classical histories including the Sanguozhi. He's also mentioned in the academic sources I outlined above. Your google search algorithm is not cause for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source found and a historical figure. He was a chieftain of Hexi Corridor, an important region of ancient China, so passes WP:NPOL as chieftain is a ruler. 1.47.208.177 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Ma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

All Citations are offline and I don't find anything reliable through Google book search. Previously deleted through AfD here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guo_Ma. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Keep The citations are all to sources over 1000 years old in the present article. A review of Google scholar turns up nothing and google just turns up references to video game characters from three kingdoms related games. I love three kingdoms and it is something Wikipedia could always expand on but I don't think Guo Ma has the basis to support an article currently. Simonm223 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the sources Cunard did when I went looking but those look more than sufficient to me. Changing my !vote accordingly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Zhao, Liming 黎明釗; Lin, Shujuan 林淑娟 (2013). You, Zi'an 游子安; Zhang, Ruiwei 張瑞威; Zhang, Yanling 張艷玲 (eds.). 漢越和集：漢唐嶺南文化與生活 [Collection of Han and Yue Dynasties: Culture and Life in Lingnan during the Han and Tang Dynasties] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. pp. 25–26. ISBN 978-962-04-3447-1. Retrieved 2024-04-10 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "天紀三年,廣州部曲督郭馬起事,攻殺廣州督虞授, 自稱為都督交、廣二州諸軍事、安南將軍。又殺害南海太守劉略、逐廣州刺史徐旗,以殷興為廣州刺史、吳述為南海太守。孫皓遂命滕修領兵萬人從東道,陶浚率兵七千人從西道,又命陶璜帶領部伍,東西夾擊郭馬。... 當時郭馬的亂事未平,滕修多番征伐不果,後聽從陶璜之議,透過經濟手段,例如拒絕與對方作鹽鐵的交易, 使之陷入困境,終成功驅逐郭馬等人。... 孫皓時發生的郭馬之亂,雖非導致國滅亡的主因,不過經歷連年征戰,加上當時朝政腐敗,國家人才凋零,在這種形勢下,吳國根本無力在討伐郭馬之餘,又派兵抵抗晉軍。"
  From Google Translate: "In the third year of Tianji, Guo Ma, the Guangzhou military supervisor, revolted and attacked and killed Yu Shu, the governor of Guangzhou. He called himself the governor of Guangzhou, the military governor of Guangzhou and Annan general. He also killed Liu Lue, the governor of Nanhai, and drove Xu Qi, the governor of Guangzhou, to appoint Yin Xing as the governor of Guangzhou and Wu Shu as the governor of Nanhai. ... At that time, the chaos of Guo Ma was not settled, and Teng Xiu tried repeatedly to conquer it without success. He later followed Tao Huang's advice and used economic means, such as refusing to trade salt and iron with the other party, to put it in trouble, and finally succeeded in expelling Guo Ma and others. ... Although the Guo Ma Rebellion that occurred during the reign of Sun Hao was not the main cause of the country's demise, after years of fighting and the corruption of the government at that time, the country's talents were withered. Under this situation, the Wu State was simply unable to send troops in addition to the crusade against Guo Ma. Resist the Jin army."
2. Su, Wei 宿巍 (2018). 三国之三国归晋：公元239–280 [The Return of the Three Kingdoms to Jin: AD 239–280] (in Chinese). Shenyang: Liaoning People's Publishing House [zh]. ISBN 978-7-205-09096-8. Retrieved 2024-04-10 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "东吴天纪四年(279)夏,吴国再次发生内乱,这对晋国来说是一个利好消息。这一年,吴国合浦太守脩允转任桂林(今广西象州)太守,因病住广州。在此之前脩允派督将郭马领兵五百先行去桂林安抚诸夷。不久脩允逝世,按照当时吴国规定,士兵应分给其他将领,郭马等人几代都在脩允的部曲中为将,不想分开。恰巧孙皓准备核实广州户口,这对广州的豪强来说绝对不是好消息。"
  From Google Translate: "In the summer of the fourth year of the Eastern Wu Tianji (279), civil strife broke out in Wu State again, which was good news for Jin State. In this year, Xiu Yun, the governor of Hepu in the state of Wu, was transferred to the governor of Guilin (now Xiangzhou, Guangxi) and lived in Guangzhou due to illness. Prior to this, Xiu Yun sent the governor Guo Ma to lead 500 troops to Guilin to appease the barbarians. Soon after Xiu Yun passed away, according to the regulations of the State of Wu at that time, soldiers should be assigned to other generals. Guo Ma and others had been generals in Xiu Yun's army for several generations and did not want to be separated. It happened that Sun Hao was about to verify his Guangzhou household registration, which was definitely not good news for the powerful people in Guangzhou."
  The book notes: "于是郭马趁机与部曲将何典、王族、吴述、殷兴等人鼓动兵民造反,他们聚合人众,攻杀广州都督虞授。随后郭马自号都督交、广二州诸军事、安南将军, "
  From Google Translate: "So Guo Ma took the opportunity and teamed up with the generals He Dian, Wang Zu, Wu Shu, Yin Xing and others to incite the soldiers and people to rebel. They gathered the people and attacked and killed the governor of Guangzhou, Yu Shuo. Later, Guo Ma named himself the governor of Jiao, the military forces of Guangzhou and Guangzhou, and General Annan. Yin Xing named himself the governor of Guangzhou, and Wu Shu named himself the prefect of Nanhai."
3. Zhang, Da'ke 张大可 (2013). 張文可文集第八巷三國史研究 [Collected Works of Zhang Wenke. Lane 8. Research on the History of the Three Kingdoms] (in Chinese). Beijing: Commercial Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-7-100-09773-4. Retrieved 2024-04-10 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "孙吴用授兵制对私家部曲进行干预和控制,可以孙皓天纪三年(公元279年)郭马反叛事件作为典型例证。郭马本是合浦太守脩允的部曲督。由于允死后,“兵当分给,马等累世旧军,不乐离别”,于是郭马与部曲将何典、王族、吴述、殷兴等反叛, 攻杀广州督。"
  From Google Translate: "Sun Wu used the military conferment system to intervene and control private tribes. The Guo Ma rebellion in the third year of Sun Haotian's reign (AD 279) can be used as a typical example. Guo Ma originally was the governor of Xiu Yun, the governor of Hepu. Since after Yun's death, "the troops should be divided among the old troops, Ma and others were tired of seeing each other", so Guo Ma and his tribe generals He Dian, Wang Zu, Wu Shu, Yin Xing and others rebelled and attacked and killed the governor of Guangzhou."
4. Zhou, Weifeng 周苇风 (2016). 岭南先唐文学研究 [Research on Lingnan Pre-Tang Dynasty Literature] (in Chinese). Nanjing: Nanjing University Press [zh]. ISBN 978-7-305-18092-7. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  The book notes: "吴天纪三年 ( 公元279年)夏,合浦太守修允部曲督郭马反,合聚人众,攻杀广州督虞授、南海太守刘略,逐广州刺史徐旗。... 郭马反叛牵制了驻扎交州的陶璜和前去平叛的滕修等部,难以北援。"
  From Google Translate: "In the summer of the third year of Wu Tianji (AD 279), Guo Ma, the governor of the Xiuyun tribe of Hepu, rebelled, gathered a crowd, attacked and killed the governor of Guangzhou, Yu Shou, and the prefect of Nanhai, Liu Lue, and drove away the governor of Guangzhou, Xu Qi. ... The Guo Ma rebellion pinned down Tao Huang who was stationed in Jiaozhou and Teng Xiu who went to quell the rebellion, making it difficult for him to send reinforcements from the north."
5. Wang, Tingku; Yang, Shiting 杨式挺 (1996). 广东通史: 古代 [General History of Guangdong: Ancient Times]. Guangzhou: 广东高等教育出版社. Guangdong Higher Education Press. p. 315. Retrieved 2024-04-10 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "天纪三年(晋咸宁五年, 279 )夏爆发了震动全广州境的郭马兵变。... 修允因在番禺养病,先派其部曲督郭马带兵 500 赴桂林"安抚诸夷"。修允所统兵乃是其父修则(战死于交州)旧部,或是更早的荆州兵及其后代。郭马等是"累世旧军"。这些中下级将领同旧军兵士甚为团结。修允病死,郭马等不愿按制度将修允全军分由其他将领统率散驻各处。与此同时,孙皓又为增加賦役、征发兵员,令"科实广州户口"。于是郭马同下级军官何典、王族、吴述、殷兴等联络民众,发动兵变,攻杀广州督虞授、南海太守刘略,驱逐广州刺史徐旗。郭马自号都督交、."
  From Google Translate: "In the third year of Tianji (the fifth year of Xianning in Jin Dynasty, 279), the Guo Ma mutiny broke out in the summer and shocked the entire Guangzhou territory. ... Xiu Yun was recuperating in Panyu, so he first sent Guo Ma, the governor of his tribe, to lead 500 troops to Guilin to "pacify the barbarians." The troops under Xiu Yun's command were the old troops of his father Xiu Ze (who died in Jiaozhou in battle), or the earlier Jingzhou soldiers and their descendants. Guo Ma and others are "old armies of many generations". These middle and lower-level generals are very united with the old army soldiers. Xiu Yun died of illness, and Guo Ma and others were unwilling to follow the system and distributed Xiu Yun's entire army to other generals to command and station them in various places. At the same time, Sun Hao also ordered "Guangzhou household registration" to be verified in order to increase taxes and recruit soldiers. So Guo Ma, together with the subordinate officers He Dian, Wang Clan, Wu Shu, Yin Xing and others, contacted the people and launched a mutiny, attacking and killing Guangzhou governor Yu Shuo and Nanhai prefect Liu Lue, and expelled Guangzhou governor Xu Qi. Guo Ma named himself the Governor of Jiao."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Guo Ma (traditional Chinese: 郭馬; simplified Chinese: 郭马) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 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) 15:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Banks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to have received significant new coverage since the last time. The only new development is his intention to run for state-level office, which per WP:NPOL is insufficient for notability, and which doesn't appear to have received significant coverage. — Moriwen (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rick Banks that designed soccer uniforms and one at Stamford that show in my searches, nothing for this person. I'm still not seeing notability, likely PROMO for his election campaign. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article is a copy-paste from Draft:Rick Banks without attribution. It has been tagged for history merge. If this article is deleted, the draft should be kept. I am not !voting Keep or Delete at this time because I intend to provide a source analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 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. ✗plicit 14:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Ballantine[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing found to offer for the consideration of notability per the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I cannot really find any coverage.

🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 15:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two different search engines only bring up listings for the compilation album That's Not Funny, That's Sick when searchin' "Dick Ballantine" with "National Lampoon." Lookin' through different databases, which catalog pages n' pages about National Lampoon in all its forms, Dick Ballantine doesn't turn up any results at all. If we wanted to be nice, we could redirect to That's Not Funny, That's Sick or The National Lampoon Radio Hour, but given that the character ain't particularly described in either article, deletion would make more sense. ~Judy _{(call it in!)} 15:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The National Lampoon Radio Hour. Note that while this may have insufficient sourcing for a standalone article, it need not be notable to be included as part of that article. Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't even meet WP:V, let alone WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 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. ✗plicit 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bennington Street[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing anything much to count towards the inclusion criteria on en.wiki but interested to see if anyone else can find anything JMWt (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Massachusetts. JMWt (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Driving directions, items for sale and business listings, nothing talking about the history or heritage or construction or anything about the street itself. Delete for lack of suitable sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 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. ✗plicit 11:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yapping[edit]

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

A WP:DICTDEF and examples of recent usage; maybe it could be merged somewhere, but not enough content besides the examples to merit an article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 10:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Generation Z slang. Subject not notable enough for own article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears in List of Generation Z slang, but I do not believe it should redirect there - redlink and letting search do its thing would be a better option. Gen Z didn't start until the mid-90s, but Ngrams suggest that an earlier generation is more responsible for popularising the term from the start of the rise in 1996 through to its (current) peak in ~2012 than Gen Z is. 13:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete: There are words whose etymological history has such big social significance, and so much coverage, that an encyclopedia article makes sense. Gay is an example. Yapping doesn't reach the bar. The two main sources (Yahoo news and NYT) are the best that I can also find, and both are lightweight space-fillers, the linguistic equivalent of "Blue is the colour this spring!" fashion articles. The NYT article explicitly states that the term has become popular in "recent weeks", and "will probably be on its way out just as quickly as it arrived". For the same reason, don't redirect to Gen-Z slang. The word is neither slang, nor used exclusively by Gen-Z. It's just a normal English word that was minding its own business until it suddenly got used a lot, in one of the meanings it already had. Elemimele (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thought about nominating it myself, can it even be called a 2020s slang term when sources and even the examples showcase that yapping has been used as a word (with the same meaning) for decades, and by significantly older people? Attempts at building it beyond a WP:DICDEF seem frail (per above). Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the term yap is used far more often in recent times than it has, primarily by members of Generation Z. So it is held to my belief that the article for yapping should be maintained in its status as an article so those who are unfamiliar with the term can come to the page for knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LCSchwabe (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dictionary content (meaning, etymology, usage) of a very old word. A generational spike in popularity is not sufficient to make the word historically notable. Cnilep (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It too short describe. Maybe up to 30,000 bytes would better understanding. It has been noting definition. I have not heard word Yapping and I don't understand.

47.234.198.142 (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - the word has taken on a new shade of meaning, but it has existed for a long time. Its popularity doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own, particularly as its popularity hasn't lasted a long time. Embroidering with noodles (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(That was meant to be its own post and not a reply - don't know if I can edit the post, sorry!) Embroidering with noodles (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I fixed it for you. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no merge) per NOTDICT and other deleters. This is well-attested and used before and outside of gen Z slang, so it would be inappropriate to include there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article, while failing WP:NOTDICT, is also based on the assumption that the word is Gen Z slang, which is false. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already been relisted 3 times, cannot be relisted again. It still has a mix of opinions on whether to merge or just delete. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cost price[edit]

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

PROD was removed, reason given: Remove PROD tag - may be notable. This is a problematic, unreferenced article about a topic that may or may not also be covered elsewhere. That said, corresponding articles in other Wikipedias are referenced. Recommend discussion at AfD, hopefully with some economists’ input. This makes sense to me. I couldn't establish that it was notable, or be sure it wasn't covered elsewhere. Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Passes WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like a junior school essay to be honest. Net cost is a thing, basically what you buy an item for from wholesalers before resale to the public, but this isn't describing that. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 25 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!} 07:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to cost. I think cost price could and should be a concept that there is encyclopedic content about on Wikipedia, beyond that of a dictionary entry. I looked at Britannica for comparison. However the current article has no footnotes so it is difficult to see what is sourced and what is not. I've suggested merge, though it would have to be done by someone who could add inline citations at the same time, probably with reference to the source materials in the current general references, if that's possible. Otherwise, I expect others will argue there's no properly referenced material to merge. To which I would argue WP:MINREF. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer, could you strike one of your "votes"? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cost: Per Curb's rationale. Best, Reading Beans 13:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing worth merging here that isn't covered at Cost. Also MINREF isn't a useful argument, as the content has been challenged. The 'This page in a nutshell' of WP:RS is a better argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Storm Prediction Center#Brief history timeline. ✗plicit 11:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Leitman[edit]

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

Unnotable, not notable outside of one event so fails WP:BLP1E at best. 100.12.36.99 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Environment, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Storm Prediction Center#Brief history timeline which covers the contents of this stub. She is the first woman at the SPC to issue such a warning, but I suspect that she is not the first woman worldwide to do so (eg Sue Barrell), and even if she were WP:BLP1E would still apply. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Redirect, good idea. Masterhatch (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Per this comment. WikiMane11 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Redirect or more likely merge as suggested, this individual doesn't seem notable outside that event. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. I'll note they could someday meet WP:GNG (a few broadcast journalists have entries in the Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture), but currently does not have the coverage to meet inclusion guidelines. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:59, 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. ✗plicit 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of types of websites[edit]

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

Weird meta-list that violates WP:NLIST and WP:OR. Almost completely unreferenced, there is no criteria regarding what kind of typology is used to describe the concept of type of a website. Some are red links (or would be if linked), like Affiliate agency, Membership website, Brand-building site, etc. Totally random and missing other types (ex. porn site). The latter is mentioned in the ORish inclusion-criteria lead as specifically not mentioned as it is a type of e-commerce website, but other e-commerce websites are listed, ex. Comparison shopping website. This is a mess that needs to be retired. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't keep random stuff WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced list. I mean, you can find sourced talking about websites, but this seems OR and would be too much of a hassle to source and rework. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undoubtedly trivial article. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:28, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in India[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiply and properly sourced, easily meets GNG, and really not appreciating the 'save it on Fandom' lecture here because the nominator is expected to do their own work before asking for article deletion. Nate • (chatter) 17:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sourced but those are announcments and primary sources. This would've passed in 2004 but this is 2024, standards has changed. Also, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a program listing, these are sports league right contracts and this article would make for a completely unintuitive TV guide. Please read through the WP cited before just tossing it out there to try to nullify a good faith vote!. Nate • (chatter) 17:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More like a guide of what sports you can watch on which channel. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is using a sports rights article to find out where to watch an event except in the context of a Google search which highlights the event/channel as a result, which wouldn't be the first result anyways. Nate • (chatter) 12:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I note that while many of these articles have been nominated for deletion at the moment, neither the UK nor US one have been. The US article was previously kept at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States. Nom has identified some content issues regarding lack of prose, but that can be resolved. India is one of the biggest sports markets in the world, with the second-most expensive broadcasting rights, and sports broadcasting contracts there attract substantial media coverage. Sports broadcasting rights in India have been discussed in the International Sports Law Journal and subject to analysis in numerous articles (1, 2, 3, 4 (academic analysis), 5 (more academic analysis)) AusLondonder (talk) 12:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BELONG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No idea why you've linked this. AusLondonder (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If keep, I suggest you fix all the problemmatic entries - I can see lots such as unsourced entries, some claiming to be YouTube, primary sources and non-notable news announcments - these were the reasons why it had been nominated in the first place. And you know coverages with Eurosport India is the same with other countries. As with the source, half of those are in the paywall, so I cannot claim them to be reliable source without access. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @AusLondonder's source analysis. Big markets most likely have the secondary coverage to justify articles, smaller markets don't. UK, India, US, etc are probably notable. BrigadierG (talk) 10:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Sweden[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only sources is a news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Sweden. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think the subject of the article can be notable but it'd need to be more prose and less list. AlexandraAVX (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE and does not meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Winston[edit]

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

No significant independent sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG as has no independent, verifiable references. MountClew (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search shows entirely nothing from Independent sources, apart from press releases. Does not convince much of WP:GNG. Ping me if sources are found -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark C. Brickell[edit]

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV about this person. HenryMP02 (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom.

WikiMane11 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Newsweek is no longer a reliable source. Interviews can't be used to validate information. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V, and WP:BLP. In 2024, everyone knows we are not a place to post a resume, nor post unfavorable information for its own sake. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 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. ✗plicit 23:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibly (company)[edit]

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

I think this fails WP:NCORP as the sources aren't reliable, although I'm more willing to be proven wrong than usual as they at least don't outright look like paid placements. I think the best three sources are the reviews of their business loan products by Money, Forbes, and Newsweek. I'm unclear if money.com is reliable, I'm unclear if "Personal Finance Writer" and "Loans Writer" on forbes.com is WP:FORBESCON or not, and I don't know what "Contributor" entails on post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK. The rest of the sources are PR reprints, and some awards that I don't think give notability. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United States of America, and Michigan. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 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 merge‎ to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leah (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

Non-notable Walking Dead character all sources are either episode reviews or interviews with the actress. Fictional history is all unsourced . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. . Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources are found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. BOZ (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:SIGCOV, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Multiple of the episode reviews cited substantially treat the Leah character. Per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, a plot synopsis does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary (though the synopses in the Leah article do need to be substantially shorter). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydrangeans Can you name/link/analyze two SIGCOV-meeting sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. This is lacking in WP:SIGCOV. Merge is a fine WP:ATD and someone can always revisit this if there is significant reception more than WP:PLOT summary. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:54, 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. ✗plicit 23:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Distillers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as only having local coverage from Aspen news sources and PR reprints. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, United States of America, and Colorado. ~ A412 ^talk! 05:26, 25 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!} 04:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

note :.It must be rewritten again and searched for secondary sources،GQO (talk) 7:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article cites the company's website several times, independent sources are lacking, and a reliable source like the Wall Street Journal doesn't mention the company at all.Gedaali (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looks like sources have been located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Summer (Squeeze song)[edit]

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

Not a very searchable name, but I scoured regardless and couldn't turn up any sources. For a band as big as this one, I would think the lead single of any album of theirs would get more coverage, but perhaps it's just not archived. Anyone with access to '90s copies of NME or Kerrang! (or whatever else) please give them a check. If not, this should be redirected to Ridiculous (album) as it does not show clear notability as is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Different journalists, for the Washington Post ([41]) and the Hamilton Spectator ([42]), both called the track "buoyant". The Independent ([43]) stated the song was "an odd reverse homage which seeks to reclaim Squeeze's rightful place in the Cockney Brit-pop hierarchy", but also "the best track here". Newsday ([44]) stated the single "is tailor-made for pop radio". The charting of the track and the remix are both confirmed respectively by the Official Charts Company: [45], [46]. Given the charting, and the coverage found (minimal as it is), I'm leaning to week keep on the presumption offline coverage likely exists. ResonantDis_tortion 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a confirmed top 40 UK single by a noted band (and it actually made the UK top 40 twice), I think that fulfills the notability criteria. I'd argue to keep. 174.95.162.236 (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 06:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ChinaCast Education[edit]

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

The article says ChinaCast Education Corporation is the leading for-profit provider of post-secondary education and e-learning services in the People's Republic of China. However, no information can be found on Chinese search engines, and in fact, the media does not continue to focus on this for-profit learning organisation, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability.Zhuo1221 (talk) 05:18, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs major work, as it is basically just a promotional piece at this point. However, it is absolutely trivial to find sources reporting on this company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. It is clear that no WP:BEFORE was done here. The sources being old ("the media does not continue to focus on this for-profit learning organisation") isn't relevant, as notability doesn't expire. Cortador (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources found by Cortador demonstrate that ChinaCast Education passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article could benefit from a refresh. I've included some older sources for for future comments. I think this article could benefit from a rewrite to make it more engaging, with removing promotional information.Dejaqo (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of sources discussing this subject at length. I just added a link. Much more could be done to improve the article.
Agree with @Cortador it's clear no effort was made to search for sources before bringing this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 07:28, 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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Laban[edit]

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

Article recently created by disclosed paid editors from BYU. Despite the extensive references, most scholarship on the Book of Mormon is conducted by Mormons so whether WP:INDY sourcing requirement is met is unclear. For example, Catholicism and Judaism, among others, have produced vast bodies of scholarship on the details of their own religion, but only the clearly notable topics of Catholic canon law or Jewish exegetical literature are summarized here for the non-specialist reader.

While a proposed merge to First Nephi would also have been a reasonable course, I believe a full AfD is more likely to attract more independent comments and form a clearer community consensus. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, and Latter Day Saints. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, there are some questionable sources. Irreantum is the publication for the Association for Mormon Letters, and it is not peer-reviewed. However, it is a literary journal, and it is used as a source just in the "Literary and artistic representations" section. That seems like an appropriate use of the source--for the existence of literature about the killing of Laban. Similarly, seeing The Ensign as a source gives me pause, but the text of the Wikipedia article attributes the author as an LDS apostle in-text. Full disclosure: My friend and expert in Book of Mormon studies created this page at my encouragement (so, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote in this discussion; if that's the case, consider this a comment). I would like to hear what other Wikipedians think! We need to develop more consensus about sources for LDS topics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is part of a broader discussion within the LDS wikispace pertaining to sources, contributions by individual editors, etc. As it stands, the article appears to have the following sources:
- #1 through #7 - referencing the BOM directly. These are WP:PRIMARY references.
- #8 - summary of the topic in a section of a scholarly book, no connection to the topic.
- #9 - peer-reviewed article on the topic from an academic journal published by University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU. Part of the broader sourcing discussion.
- #10 - article on the subject from an independent journal in the space. No other concerns.
- #11 -article that references the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
- #12 - book referencing the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
- #13 - book of mormon textbook published by the LDS Church. This is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source.
- #14 - church magazine article published by the LDS Church. Similarly not independent.
- #15 - book published by the Maxwell Institute. Part of the broader discussion.
- #16 - church magazine article, see #14
- #17 - same publication as #9
- #18 through #22 - references to the subject published in the Irreantum newsletter published by the Association of Mormon Letters. Part of the broader discussion, exact status still in debate.
- #23 - BYU address given by LDS apostle. Not independent.
- #24 - article referring to the subject from an independent journal. No other concerns.

In summary, this article has references that fall into three categories - primary sources and those closely associated with the LDS church, references that have some connection with the LDS community and are part of a broader discussion in regards to their position on Wikipedia, and independent sources that have no connection to the LDS church outside of this topic. In my view, there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that references and articles are used and written in a WP:NPOV and independent manner. However, references such as #10, 11, 12, and #24 are indicative of this part of the Book of Mormon being a scholarly important part of the broader narrative. These are examples of various authors using the Book of Mormon narrative as a primary source to help draw conclusions related to their various secondary conclusions, allowing Wikipedia to draw tertiary summaries from these articles. Could this article use additional rewrite? Absolutely. But it does not need to be deleted, at least as far as these sources are concerned. Rollidan (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ If this article is kept, it should be subject to heavy cleanup tags and extensive trimming. Lots of issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY, and by extension, WP:NPOV. On the other hand, the idea of the Killing of Laban providing justification for later Blood Atonement is interesting, could counterbalance the prevailing pro-LDS POV, and could provide justification for the notability of the article as a whole. Those thoughts should remain and perhaps even be expanded if possible. Trevdna (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 24 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) 03:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge, as Trevdna notes the stuff about Blood Atonement is interesting and should probably be expanded upon if possible... However I think that should happen at Blood Atonement not here, other parts could go other places. I don't think that we have enough significant coverage of the topic in independent RS... Rollidan does a decent job addressing independence, but they stop there and don't examine whether or not the coverage is significant. I'm just not seeing it/ Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. Changing my comment vote to a Delete/merge vote as well. Blood atonement#Historical and doctrinal background seems a handy place for this information, which can be covered there quite nicely. Mormonism and violence is another obvious candidate location. Other than that, there's nothing really notable in this article from an independent standpoint. Trevdna (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note, "Delete/Merge" makes no sense. An editor can't merge a deleted article. So, instead say "Merge/Delete" if that's the point you want to make.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to First Nephi - also make sure that the sources that are retained into the target article are, wherever possible, not sourced back to the LDS church's in-house publications to establish the notability of this religious story. Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Delete/merge means that I support either deleting or merging the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Eye's Back, seriously? I didn't pick that up that there is a missing "or". I took it as sequential, like Delete, then Merge. Well, now I know, thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one of those things where if we were talking IRL the cues would have have been tonal but written it is ambiguous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge to either of the suggested targets. This article is in bad need of wp:tnt and seemingly no critical sources could be found. It reads like a Sunday school lesson, not a generally notable topic. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rollidan. This is one of the more troublesome passages in the Book of Mormon and is notable for how it has influenced and challenged Mormon thought. ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is a consensus to Delete this article. If an editor would like to work on it in Draft space and submit it to AFC for review, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. But it will need to be approved by AFC and not just moved back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwaku Mills[edit]

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

Article a non-notable film actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV, he has only played minor roles in movies/series, some of which don't even credit him. The author seems very desperate to get this article up despite being declined in Draftspace and also placed an AFC template showing the article was approved when infact it was never approved. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial coverage of his roles [47], in a list of other actors in the series. Only mentioned here [48] for a stage play and an interview for the play (behind a paywall, it's been archived here) [49]. I also would have done a PROD on this, not notable per our standards and a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is clearly a notable cast addition to a notable TV series. I have now added multiple reliable, independent sources that show he is one of the main characters. He appears in 'first look' imagery for the show, and as part of a group of 3 other actors announced as joining the series (who all have wikipedia entires) clearly suggesting his role as significant and noteworthy to the series.

I have added further sources that reference the stage plays mentioned. From a quick online search I can see he has clearly been in further stage productions, there are multiple reviews in reputable papers. I included these in a previous Draftspace article but was told by you that it seemed promotional, so I removed them.

I have removed mentions of his minor roles or any that don't credit him.

I must apologise for placing an AFC template on my previous draftspace article. I am new to all this and obviously still learning. I thought a move to mainspace was an action I was allowed to take. Once informed otherwise I removed it from mainspace.

I decided to delete my previous draft, and be bold and try to publish my first mainspace article. I would ask that you remember Wikipedia's guideline 'not to bite the newcomers'. Your claim that i seem 'very desperate' seems rather personal, and discouraging to a new editor. JodieGarcelle (talk) 10:27, 25 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) 03:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don’t think the subject has met the requirements for WP:NACTOR at this time.Contributor892z (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would it be appropriate to draftify this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search shows only trivia, passing mentions, press releases, etc., than deep coverage from Independent sources. -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search clearly shows subject is included in the headline of several articles as a new addition to a notable television series (‘Variety’ article for example - which is clearly a reputable, independent source). Subject’s photograph and shot of him from the series appear in many of the articles. I fail to see why subject would be included with prominence in such articles if not clearly a notable addition to the television series.

A search also shows a wide range of reviews of his stage work at notable theatres, in reputable newspapers and arts blogs. JodieGarcelle (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and not notable.
Bradelykooper (talk) 06:55, 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. I see a consensus to Delete and the article clearly lacks NPOV. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, let me know or ask at WP:REFUND. But I'm not optimistic without doing a complete rewriting of this article. This is not the kind of writing Wikipedia utilizes in articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Kerala Story[edit]

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

Hopelessly non-neutral. Reads like an essay and seems to be composed mostly of OR and SYNTH. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 05:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Hinduism, and Kerala. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 05:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not an original research WP:OR article, India is generally known as a secular nation, but nowadays channels and websites are proving that it is a false news, only in some states in India, secularism exists, the ruling government and related organizations are eliminating secularism, but in Kerala , secularism is still strong. But Hindi movies and other political programs and IT cells supported by the Indian government are trying to destroy secularism and sectarianism in Kerala [50], stories are being spread that 32,000 people have gone to Islamic state in Kerala after the release of 2023 Hindi movie [51]], Hindus are not safe in Kerala, there is actually Hindu Muslim friendship in Kerala. This article tells the truth about it[52], struggles and arguments are going on in this name, Kerala government, chief minister [53] and other political leaders are supporting the The 'Real' Kerala Story. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 11:50, 08 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete, obvious WP:RGW from the article creator Mach61 13:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Not a WP:RGW, it's been reported by reliable sources-WP:RS ~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Spworld2 Please explain to me how this article isn't a violation of the Neutral point of view and No original research policies. Mach61 21:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mach61 You can check if you have a WP:RS on this and maybe your question will be answered~ Spworld2 (talk) 9:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete, cf. the 3rd example in WP:RGW. The table in the section "The Real Kerala Story With and Against" also gives off a belief that those who are with "the real Kerala story" are the good guys and people who are against it are the bad guys, which is a CLEAR violation of WP:NPOV. Snibblydoo (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This section removed, This table section was added after the start of the discussion, now that the violence section has been deleted ~ Spworld2 (talk) 9:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Wikipedia is not a place to write essays. Thilsebatti (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thilsebatti How is this an essays?? Does an event appear to be declared as split, because there is more subtitle? Source references thus prove the event. Have a clear WP:RS, Would it be possible for you to maintain this page as someone who edits articles in this zone?~ Spworld2 (talk) 3:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Book of Mormon places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cumeni[edit]

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

No independent secondary sources seem to cover this town in depth. Redirect to the book of mormon. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places Jahaza (talk) 07:48, 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 procedural keep. This is a talk page, and talk pages don't belong at AFD. Also, the same user had already nominated the article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese opening). (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chinese opening[edit]

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

This article introduces the Chinese flow of Go layout, from the origin to the development and improvement of the process of integration into AI But I think this point is not necessary, because the link point is in Chinese, and the website information is also inaccurate. So I think it can be deleted. Linziyu1823 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Linziyu1823 (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have inserted the wrong page into the template. You used Talk:Chinese opening instead of Chinese opening. HenryMP02 (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Chinese opening) - I don't understand the nom reasoning and whilst the current sourcing seems imperfect, there seems to be plenty of reason to think the topic is notable. JMWt (talk) 09:56, 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!} 06:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3030 Press[edit]

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

The article lacks official information.And less well-known.On the Web, the company's information can only be found on Facebook.The company cannot be found on well-known websites such as Google Scholar.The introduction is similarly brief, with no important citations AYAO32269 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. AYAO32269 (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about these guys to even verify that they exist beyond a linkedin page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a thorough search using relevant keywords, but unfortunately, I couldn't find any reliable sources to support the information in this article. Interestingly, there wasn't even any mention of the company's supposedly notable publications. Based on this lack of verifiable information, the company does not meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.Dejaqo (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be nothing useful in the usual web indexes or Baidu for "3030 Press" or "3030出版社". Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no link to the information source, and almost no relevant information about this publisher can be found, which meets the conditions for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bai0926 (talk • contribs) 05:14, 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 keep‎. CSK#1 - Absence of delete rationale. Neither the nominator, nor anyone else, supports deletion. (non-admin closure) ~ A412 ^talk! 18:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese opening[edit]

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

This article introduces the Chinese flow of Go layout, from the origin to the development and improvement of the process of integration into AI, which I think is very necessary. Because Weiqi is one of China's traditional culture and has a long history, with the development of modern times, Weiqi techniques will also develop with the progress of science and technology, and be integrated with science and technology. Linziyu1823 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Linziyu1823 (talk) 04:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The so-called Chinese opening pattern in go (game) is clearly notable, many books having been written about it. The basis of this nomination is unclear. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am confused. The nominator does not give any reason why this article should be deleted. The nominator's comments seem to prove that this article should be kept, not deleted.--Neo-Jay (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, this is a nomination by a brand-new editor who I suspect has no idea what AfD is for. I am not convinced they actually know that they were nominating an article to be deleted. Elemimele (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I procedurally closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Chinese opening, but note that User:JMWt wrote about this article: Keep (Chinese opening) - I don't understand the nom reasoning and whilst the current sourcing seems imperfect, there seems to be plenty of reason to think the topic is notable. Geschichte (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see several pages about the Chinese opening in The World of Chinese Go, Dictionary of Basic Fuseki and Go! More Than a Game. Also, the nomination doesn't make any sense. Toughpigs (talk) 17:37, 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!} 06:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivona Turčinović[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 Montenegrin women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. I found some transactional announcements (1, 2, 3), as well as a few sentences of coverage from her exploits in Italian futsal (1, 2), but no WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. JTtheOG (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Montenegro. JTtheOG (talk) 04:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 08:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage from Independent sources of the subject. Does not convince much of WP:SIGCOV. I leaning towards delete for now. If someone manages to dig deeper and finds sources that convince WP:SIGCOV, please ping me. I might change my vote.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom. TheChronikler7 (talk) 01:51, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huaguoyuan Towers[edit]

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

The Huaguoyuan Tower is a pair of super tall skyscrapers located in Guiyang, Guizhou, China. However, I couldn't find a lot of relevant information on Chinese search engines, perhaps due to translation issues. In fact, the media did not continue to pay attention to this building, which is in line with Wikipedia:Notability WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and China. WANGYIFAN2024 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the Chinese Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chen, Yue; Feng, Yan 冯艳 (2015-09-21). Zhao, Xingzhi 赵兴智 (ed.). "中国第一高——花果园双子塔封顶" [The Tallest in China - Huaguoyuan Twin Towers Topped Out]. 贵州商报 [Guizhou Business Daily] (in Chinese). Guizhou Daily. Archived from the original on 2017-06-16. Retrieved 2024-04-08.
  The article notes: "花果园双子塔坐落于贵州省最大旧城改造项目——花果园项目的核心位置，分东西两座塔楼，两塔结构高度和建筑总高度分别均为334.35米和406米，属于花果园200万平方米商业规划中最重要部分。作为贵阳未来城市的地标性建筑和贵阳城市经济发展的缩影，双子塔规划时就被赋予了“铭记加速发展、加快转型的奋进贵州”的特殊含义，奠基时更被看作是“我国西部崛起的一个标志”。"
  From Google Translate: "The Huaguoyuan Twin Towers are located at the core of the Huaguoyuan Project, the largest old city renovation project in Guizhou Province. They are divided into two towers, the east and west towers. The structural height of the two towers and the total building height are 334.35 meters and 406 meters respectively. They belong to the Huaguoyuan 2 million Square meters are the most important part of business planning. As the landmark building of Guiyang's future city and the epitome of Guiyang's urban economic development, the Twin Towers were given the special meaning of "keeping in mind the accelerating development and transformation of Guizhou" when they were planned. When the foundation was laid, they were even regarded as "the rise of western my country." a sign of"."
2. Liu, Lihong 刘丽红 (2018-04-12). "贵阳花果园双子塔开启全球招租" [Guiyang Huaguoyuan Twin Towers opens global leasing] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.
  The article notes: "贵阳国际贸易中心双子塔高335米，是目前全国已经修建完成的最高“双子塔”，分为A、B两座，A座是贵阳少有的超甲级写字楼，属于贵阳写字楼的翘楚。B座则是贵阳的首家超奢华五星费尔蒙酒店及部分高端公寓。"
  From Google Translate: "The twin towers of Guiyang International Trade Center are 335 meters high and are the tallest "twin towers" that have been built in the country. They are divided into two towers, A and B. Tower A is a rare super-A office building in Guiyang and is the leader of Guiyang office buildings. Tower B is Guiyang’s first ultra-luxury five-star Fairmont hotel and some high-end apartments."
3. "央视上演"厉害了我的国"全国33个城市地标主题灯光秀花果园双子塔闪耀筑城" [CCTV staged "My Country is Amazing" with landmark-themed light shows in 33 cities across the country, and the Twin Towers of the Flower Orchard shimmered into the city.] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. 2017-10-09. Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.
  The article notes: "贵阳花果园项目“双子塔工程”，位于贵阳市南明区花果园项目中部彭家湾地段，贵黄公路、川黔铁路和贵广高铁以北，花溪大道西侧。它以335米的建设高度成为贵阳城市的新地标。作为贵阳城市的地标性建筑和贵阳城市经济发展的缩影，双子塔规划时就被看作“我国西部崛起的一个标志”。"
  From Google Translate: "The "Twin Towers Project" of Guiyang Huaguoyuan Project is located in the Pengjiawan section of the central Huaguoyuan Project in Nanming District, Guiyang City, north of Guihuang Highway, Sichuan-Guizhou Railway and Guizhou-Guangzhou High-speed Railway, and on the west side of Huaxi Avenue. With a construction height of 335 meters, it has become a new landmark in Guiyang city. As a landmark building in Guiyang and the epitome of Guiyang's economic development, the Twin Towers were regarded as "a symbol of the rise of western my country" when they were planned."
4. Xu, Qifei 徐其飞 (2020-08-19). Gao, Linxiao 郜林筱; Chen, Kangqing 陈康清 (eds.). "清晨登顶花果园双子塔一览"云隙光瀑"奇观" [Climb to the top of the Huaguoyuan Twin Towers in the early morning to see the wonders of the "Light Waterfall in the Clouds"]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-04-08. Retrieved 2024-04-08.
  The article notes: "站在花果园双子塔上望去，只见一束束阳光穿透云层，如从天而降的“瀑布”直泻大地。大大小小的山头在光瀑的照射下，散发出空灵、静谧的魅力。"
  From Google Translate: "Standing on the Twin Towers of Huaguoyuan, you can see beams of sunlight penetrating the clouds, like "waterfalls" falling from the sky to the earth. Under the illumination of the light waterfall, the mountains, large and small, exude an ethereal and quiet charm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Huaguoyuan Towers (simplified Chinese: 花果园双子塔; traditional Chinese: 花果園雙子星大樓), also known as Guiyang International Trade Center (simplified Chinese: 贵阳国际贸易中心; traditional Chinese: 貴陽國際貿易中心) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Cunard's argument ; thank you @Eastmain for the added references. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 10:01, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evie Dolan[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on sources in article and search of Newspapers.com. Most of the sources in the article are passing mentions and the only significant coverage is from questionable sources. Additionally, the only significant contributors to the page ([54]) appear to be users with conflicts of interest. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 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!} 23:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I agree that the article is poorly written, a Google search quickly reviews enough evidence to pass WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor892z (talk • contribs) 13:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor892z: Could you specify which sources from Google would qualify as WP:SIGCOV for the subject? I cannot locate them in my search. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[55] and [56] anyone that was a teenage girl in 2015 knew about her. @Eagles247:Contributor892z (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor892z: The first link includes one trivial mention of Dolan, which does not constitute significant coverage. The second link also includes one trivial mention in a BuzzFeed-style slideshow. It is also from the New York Post, which is considered generally unreliable per WP:NYPOST. Your assertion that "anyone that was a teenage girl in 2015 knew about her" does not hold weight per WP:IKNOWIT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: honest question: wouldn’t someone that was the recurring face of ads with international circulation targeting a sizeable cohort of the world population be notable? Contributor892z (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Contributor892z: Probably not, see WP:NACTOR for a rough guideline of how actor notability can be determined. Nothing about being the face of an ad campaign. And the role she had in School of Rock was minor, so it likely wouldn't count towards the "significant roles in multiple [...] stage performances" aspect of the guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kindly note that this editor, Contributor892z, is confused about what WP:SIGCOV entails as they think google hit search count toward that. Not sure from where they got this policy. For reference please see their response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penton Keah. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 31 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) 04:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also unable to find significant coverage that goes into significant depth about the subject. At the moment the article reads like a simple résumé page, and it doesn't look like the subject has quite achieved notability just yet. InDimensional (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found only one of the articles which is broadwayworld.com to be proper for notability. We would need a few more like this. RolandSimon (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prosus Inten[edit]

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

This company seems to fail WP:GNG given that there is only one notable news source for this company, and what seems to be an advertisement. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [57]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian topic and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [58] [59]. Also there's another source about the topic [60], [61], [62]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This organization is one of cram school in Indonesia. Cram schools generally lack significant coverage, and this one is no exception. So, it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NSCHOOL. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 2 references in the article are list of cram schools and promotional material for this cram school. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources found on the web are just passing mentions and the only coverage is from CNBS Indonesia. Again, the article has one source which does not convince me at the moment -- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:34, 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 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!} 06:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binocular rivalry described by quantum formalism[edit]

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

This is an obscure way to model Binocular rivalry that is based around a single paper by physicist Efstratios Manousakis. Practically no research has been done on this subtopic apart from Manousakis's papers and a few followup papers, including one [63] by Henry Stapp that does not seem to be published in a journal. (Some papers, e.g. [64] deal with quantum formalism in other aspects of cognition, but not binocular rivalry.) It is not Wikipedia's job to describe all the experimental details of this paper, and I explained the topic in just a few sentences in the Binocular rivalry article. Since it can be easily condensed, there is no need for the subtopic to have its own article, so it should be redirected to Binocular rivalry. Related topics include Quantum mind and Quantum cognition. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This made a tiny splash in the science blogosphere when Manousakis first made the claim — a splash consisting entirely of people explaining how it was wrong — but it went nowhere and isn't even noteworthy in the annals of fringe claims. Even mentioning it at Binocular rivalry would be unwarranted. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on second thought removing the model entirely seems like the right decision. Looking at sources again, the only independent reliable source I could find discussing it is a short journal article that's somewhat negative [65]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Frontiers journals are not exactly of the highest quality. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 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. ✗plicit 03:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benson Y. Parkinson[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG due to his accomplishment or starting a forum associated with a church Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I haven't found significant coverage outside LSD Church publications, the best mainstream source I've found is just a very trivial mention in Mormons and Popular Culture. --Cavarrone 07:30, 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. ✗plicit 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Meitus[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously unreferenced article about a lawyer in the music industry, and added references. I have failed to find much significant coverage from reliable sources, however. The article in the Indianapolis Business Journal is significant coverage, but the others are passing references. I considered whether inclusion on the Billboard list would demonstrate his notability, but that is a long list (I make it 300+ names) so I am not convinced that is enough. Redirection to Carrie Newcomer might also be an option. Tacyarg (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Music, Law, and Indiana. Tacyarg (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage, the Business Journal article is fine, but that's about all there is. Best I can find are interviews with his former college [66]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just two good refs, with less SIGCOV in one. Notability is questionable. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eastern Ukraine campaign#Avdiivka breakthrough (January 2024–present). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Orlivka[edit]

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

Not notable. Fighting here is irrelevant, this is a continuation of the Battle of Avdiivka (2023–2024). After Avdiivka fell on 17 February Russian forces continued advancing until they were stopped on three villages as fighting became stalled again. These are Orlivka, Stepove and Tonenke. There is no need for this page, it can be covered either in the Battle of Avdiivka article or in the broader Eastern Ukraine campaign.

Uncountable content forks have been created as a result of this war and they've been continously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive and many many more. Super Ψ Dro 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eastern Ukraine campaign#Avdiivka breakthrough (January 2024–present). This battle is much better presented as an aftereffect of the Battle of Avdiivka, and is not notable on its own (and none of the listed sources actually refer to this as a battle). Gödel2200 (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge to Eastern Ukraine campaign#Avdiivka breakthrough (January 2024–present) per discussion above and continued lack of reliable sources referring to a "Battle of Orlivka" as of 8 April. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge to aforementioned article. There's no reason to list the end state of a previous battle as a new battle. Unless a new breakthrough occurs (which will then likely earn a new, different name) there is no reason to have this article. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:36, 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. Since the primary deletion rationale was that this article was unsourced, the issue has been addressed so I'm closing this discussion as Keep. A possible rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New England Classic (Nationwide Tour event)[edit]

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

My nomination for this page to speedy deleted was decline, but I will recapitulate my points, since they are valid -- there are no sources here, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up almost nothing related to this tour. Failure of WP:NSPORTS and WP:Verifiability (and potentially WP:NOR, given the absence of any sources). JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Golf, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All information on the page can be found here (which I have added to the article as a source).

Not a justification for keeping or deleting this particular article, but all other tournaments in the tour from 1990 to 1993 seem to have their own articles with similar levels of notability. If this is deleted, then it seems like the others should be too. XabqEfdg (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added. Tewapack (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article should probably be renamed, given that "Nationwide Tour" was never the name of the tour when the event was played. It was the name when the article was created, but the tour has changed names twice since then. pʰeːnuːmuː →‎ pʰiːnyːmyː → ‎ɸinimi → ‎fiɲimi 04:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tewapack.--User:Namiba 13:14, 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.