< February 12	February 14 >

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

The result was keep‎. Editors are free to improve or refocus this article on the assassination and aftermath itself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Zaib Khan[edit]

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

Election candidates are almost always non-notable unless elected. There is no justification to create a separate article for this candidate. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - notable and has sufficient media coverage Abo Yemen ✉ 08:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert in Pakistani politics, but I would suggest that we either keep this article or have one on the assassination itself (which this could be moved to). Alternatively, we could have an article for the 2024 election to the NA-8 Bajaur seat. We should have at least one of these, and this article is currently the only one that exists, so it should not be deleted until a viable merge target exists. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite article to be about his assassination: The assassination of a political candidate during an election campaign smells pretty darn notable to me, and the variety of sources on the topic probably agree with this. However, it's fair to conclude that he's rather non-notable besides 'getting assassinated', so it could be worth rewriting the article to focus on that rather notable topic instead (Assassination of Rehan Zaib Khan or something). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 00:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assassination of politcal candidates anywhere in the world will be a notable event in and of itself. Discussion of appropriate name for the article can continue on the talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should likely be rescoped to focus on the assassination and nota full biography but this is a fine starting point and deletion is not required. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chameleon (GIS)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources t show this meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG and there are too many sections that sound promotional (especially the third paragraph). 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NORG due to a lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. Let'srun (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Aguirre[edit]

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

Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as a procedural keep due to the bundle's size.

Most of the secondary sources are all fairly WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. The alledged criminal activity also seems to fail WP:CRIME and not notable either. Shaws username . talk . 23:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. Shaws username . talk . 23:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He appears to have some sources beyond the early 2010s. He was interviewed by NPR in 2006. There's also mention of him in 2021, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the same Felipe Aguirre. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 00:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Interesting comment above but I don't believe that suffices in terms of notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and the npr is an interview

Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A. F. Blakemore[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations because there is only trade press. There needs to be significant, independent coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources for this subject to meet the notability threshold. Sure, it has lots of coverage in The Grocer but the grocer is a trade press. I think it should be redirected to Spar (retailer) or erased for it's intrinsic lack of notability. Signal Crayfish (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPAR retailer is one division within the AF Blakemore estate this page covers the group of companies. SPAR is operated by more than one wholesaler within the UK so a redirect to SPAR would be incorrect and misleading. Bling73 (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is significant coverage in English national newspapers such as the The Times, The Financial Times, The Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian; in Scottish national newspapers such as The Scotsman and The Herald; in Irish national newspapers such as The Irish Times; by international news agencies such as Reuters; and by the Wall Street Journal. The coverage goes back for a number of decades. It should be obvious that none of these are trade press. In any event, ORG does not actually prohibit the use of trade publications to establish notability; it merely says there is a presumption against it. Presumptions on Wikipedia are rebuttable. Massive coverage in the leading trade publications will rebutt that presumption; and, in this case, the coverage is massive. There is also significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, the Internet Archive and the British Newspaper Archive. There is also an enormous amount of coverage in many local newspapers. The company is very large by British standards. For example, at one point, it was the 580th largest industrial company in the UK (The Times 1000: 1990-1991). It is the largest operator of SPAR shops in the UK. It is more than a hundred years old. It is obviously very important. James500 (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the multiple reliable sources are added to the page, I will vote Keep. Right now, my own search shows many sources and I think the company is notable and has the good sources. --NiLok223 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the comment by James500, they've been mentioned by the Financial Times [1] [2] [3] The Times [4] [5] [6] [7] The Telegraph [8] [9] and the Independent [10] (this is the point where I stopped looking) Not all of them are exclusively about Blakemore, but it is clear and consistent coverage from reputable secondary sources and to me meets WP:GNG. I would also say that the sheer volume of coverage from The Grocer is also an indiction, yes it's a trade magazine, but it's clearly notable from the amount of coverage Blakemore recives in it, especially when backed up with the reporting in mainstream newspapers. Shaws username . talk . 00:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the sources raised by Shaws username. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the many sources identified in this AfD. Toughpigs (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buy Me a Coffee[edit]

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

I could only find one substantial source besides the ones used in the article: Influencer Marketing Hub (same as Royal88888's source). The Mashable article is a bit short. The New Yorker article has only a brief mention, the Forbes article is from a contributor (WP:FORBESCON), and the Daily Dot/Passionfruit source is mostly a comparison chart. QuietCicada chirp 19:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. QuietCicada chirp 19:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Based on Mashable and 2 new citations I have found: MediaMatters and this in-depth review at Influencer Marketing Hub.Royal88888 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepA well-known and significant platform for crowdfunding, like Patreon. Perhaps the article needs to be supplemented, but as a good stab it deserves to remain --Loewstisch (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Regarding the sources cited in the article and in this discussion, the New Yorker and Daily Dot articles are brief mentions; BuiltWith is a chart showing web visits; Forbes is a contributor article as the nom noted; Influencer Marketing Hub is a trade publication that appears to have native advertising; AlternativeTo is not a reliable sources; and the Media Matters and Mashable articles fail ORGTRIV because they are about a short-lived controversy involving the company. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough coverage, New Yorker is a name drop, rest are not terribly useful sources. Best I could find was this in USA Today [11]. Not strictly about the Coffee site, but has a few paragraphs about it. Some coverage of the same event in Newsweek, which isn't a RS. I feel if we had some decent sources we could keep the article, but just not there yet. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also appears to be the same as the coverage in Media Matters and Mashable. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half-kratos21 (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with Oaktree b and vroots. S0091 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree with the above, not convinced that any of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, most appear to rely entirely on information provided by the company/execs/website. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks adequate evidence of notability, lacks sources that are both reliable and relevant enough. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – This is close. Forbes contributor and Mashable are the main WP:SIGCOV but isn't really WP:RELIABLE. This is WP:TOOSOON, for now.

TLA^tlak 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only mentions from reliable sources. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinis, Duke of Porto[edit]

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

Dinis de Braganza is not a notable figure. WP:NOTINHERITED - relationships do not confer notability and as Portugal has been a republic for over 100 years any royal connection is just trivia D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely oppose the deletion, Portugal has been a republic for over 100 years, however, that doesn't stop Dinis from being noteworthy, his parents and sibilings have Wikipedia pages and he himself is referenced in multiple reliable sources, see the references of the article. Diogo Costa (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- His parents and siblings having Wikipedia pages does not make him notable - WP:BLPFAMILY.
  I did not say that Dinis could not be noteworthy, I'm saying that he is currently not noteworthy as being in line for a throne that hasn't existed for a long time is not noteworthy. You could write a similar article about almost anyone - they were born, they had family, they had a baptism, they read a sermon at a wedding, they did an internship. What about any of that is noteworthy? D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Wikipedia:BEFORE Topic C2: This page was recently created. Therefore, request to give more time to update page before even considering deletion. Topic C3: Request that any issues are firstly raised in the Talk page, so the community can contribute to any alterations and improvements. The deletion request was made straight away bypassing the Talk page and members contributions.
Dinis of Braganza baptism was broadcasted by the Portuguese national broadcast channel RTP. Reference added to the page. Therefore, conferring notoriety to him as a public and historical figure. Furthermore, as a male line descendant of the Miguelist branch and association to his father and brother, both senior members of this same branch of the Royal House of Braganza, Dinis becomes part of Portugal's history. Dinis is godfather to Prince Alphonse of France, son of the current pretender to the french throne, via the Orleanist claim, thus solidifying his presence amongst international royals and other claimants. This page is set as a Pretender, and if Portugal were to restore is monarchy at this moment in time, he would be second in line to the throne, following his brother and his father's possible ascension to King/Portugal's throne. So, in conclusion, all the information's presented stand as of national relevance and not simple as mere "trivia". GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article are 1 (Sabado): Dinis' parents answering questions about themselves (not independent) N. 2 (Miraheze): UGS, BLPVIO N. 3 (DGABC): trivial, churnalized press release announcing his baptism N. 4 (RTP): primary video coverage of his baptism N. 5 (Point de Vue): first-person interview/recounting of a meeting with the family at their home, with some limited background on Dinis, though I can't access the rest of this source. 6 (TVI): video interview of the children, primary and non-independent N. 7 (Caras): passing mention (not even named) in description of video of his sister's wedding N. 8 (Observador): two passing mentions in primary coverage of the wedding N. 9 (Selfie): passing mention in wedding coverage N. 10 (IdNP): name in list on family-founded website N.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SÁBADO, independent? Nearly all media is biased. Its a popular weekly magazine in Portugal.
- RTP is the Portuguese national state broadcaster, what more do you want?
- TVI a very popular private Portuguese television channel
- Caras, another popular magazine in Portugal
- Observador a popular newspaper with millions of Portuguese readers
- Diogo Costa (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem not to know what independent sources are all about. People talking about themselves are autobiographies, not independent sources. You have failed to rebut the statements above that pretty much all of what this article is based upon is either raw video recording footage, mere passing mention and namechecking that is not in-depth, or autobiographical sources.
    The arguments that this person would be royalty in a mdifferent alternative universe don't hold much water, either. Wikipedia is about this universe.
    Uncle G (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is why there was a mention to give time to improve the page with other sources. I propose this conversation is moved to "talk" rather then being straight away in the "deletion" section, like it was done without a chance for improvement.
      In this universe, Dinis is considered a pretender. That is why the page was changed to pretender. But someone keeps changing the infobox to "royalty", which Dinis isn't. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - You had all of the time in the world to do that before you started a badly sourced biography of a living person. Per the project:biographies of living persons policy you two should have got your ducks in a row with rock solid sourcing first. In fact, that's a good idea for every subject. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is invalid and unstained, as there is relevant information's that the public can still read, even if the article is not "complete". Also, due to the nature of community active participation, all articles are up to constant modification.
        Like I said in one of my above's comments, this discussion should've been taken to the talk page before being considered to deletion. So the community could discuss improvements. All the suggestions opposing so far seem rooted in a republicanism sentiment. Therefore, I continue to propose to take this to the talk page. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Well if you don't stick to BLP policy, and don't come up with any satisfactory sources, which so far you have not, another policy, project:deletion policy says that this will be deleted. It's your loss if you don't do things properly as policy says. I've told you the correct thing to do. Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        This discussion was not brought to the Talk page first, so the community could give their inputs. I already provided policy examples in my comments above. Re-read them. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose:~~ as per comments above. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: You can only vote on deletion discussions once.

98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Apart from that, JoelleJay's analysis of the sources demonstrates the lack of notability. Aintabli (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Jameel[edit]

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

Originally nominated for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 and declined, then blanked and redirected citing concerns that the subject is not notable independently of his father (WP:NOTINHERITED). Following a discussion at RfD, I have restored the page, and am opening a discussion here as I find myself sharing the same notability concerns after a quick WP:BEFORE search. ^Complex/_Rational 21:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or redirect to Tariq Jamil. Not independently notable. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't believe this article is eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above comment. Notability is not inherited. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPer[edit]

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

This non notable software is long defunct and forgotten. It was never notable, and claims on the page about it being a first, in 1996, are dubious at best. Other tools already existed. There are no citations on the page, and the citation needed tag has been there for 17 years. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Article is in shambles with too many external links inserted. Also lacks WP:SIGCOV. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 02:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete. This tool is still alive and became commercial, PaperKiller and HyperPublish - it is available at Paperkiller.com and HyperPublish.com (VisualVision.com) - Please cite other tools that where WYSIWYG and that allowed visual linking and visual navigation between pages while in edit mode in 1996, if they exists. They do not exist. Otherwise this page that is very old would have been edited to point to them. This is probably the first really visual tool and this page should remain as noticeable track: if on the Web we do not keep track of the first products for the Web, where they should be noted? 188.216.49.45 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for instance, Adobe PageMill was released in 1994. However you mention it went commercial which might suggest that there is a notable subject in the commercial software. Do you have independent reliable secondary sources that demonstrate notability of PaperKiller? If so, it may be that that should have a page and this would either be merged to that or else this could be kept and moved to that title and repurposed. But first, we still have to establish the notability of the subject, so we need the sources. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sources and very badly written currently. online, just tiny mentions. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Scribner[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources to establish notability, and no source given at all for the claim that she died. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Egypt, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything on Newspapers Extended. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Since according to the article, she is (or was) primarily active in Arabic-speaking countries, perhaps someone who can read Arabic should check to see if there are usable sources in that language that refer to her. I’ve been scouring the Internet for days and have found very little in English (none of which meets WP:RS standards). LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional nominator comment: There is also an Indonesian-language version of this article, which has even fewer sources and does not claim that she died. Rather strangely, no Arabic-language article exists despite the fact that she was primarily active in Arab countries. Given what I’ve managed to find on the Internet, it’s clear that the subject of this article really existed (I couldn’t find anything verifying that she died, although all her social media accounts have been inactive for years). But she doesn’t seem to pass the notability threshold. In any case, if this article is deleted, the Indonesian version probably should be too.LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well I find obituaries, but that's all the coverage there is. Career appears non-notable. Sources used in the article aren't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Pena[edit]

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

Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as a procedural keep due to the bundle's size.

The secondary sources are all fairly WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 23:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. Shaws username . talk . 23:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iniga von Thurn und Taxis[edit]

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

Article only details familial relationship to others as that's all there is to point to for notability WP:BLPFAMILY D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The whole content is birth, marriage, issue and death. Therfore no notability. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The same can be said her the articles about her parents: Prince Ludwig Philipp of Thurn and Taxis and his wife Princess Elisabeth of Luxembourg, unless those are being deleted too... no question the article needs improvement but I think deletion might be a bit drastic. Uppagus (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources in the article do not support GNG (and several are non-RS), and I didn't see any other sources providing IRS SIGCOV.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of language histories[edit]

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

This seems to be a list of articles, not a list article, i.e. essentially a category—and moreover, duplicates the existing Category:Language histories. Remsense诉 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Remsense诉 22:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also redundant with Template:Language histories --//Replayful (talk | contribs) 22:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center – Europe[edit]

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

Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center – Korea. Little if any independent coverage. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, South Korea, and United States of America. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough coverage anywhere, simply a copy and paste from government websites. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Armenta[edit]

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

Previously listed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fidel_Vargas with a procedural close due to bundle size.
The vast majority of secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. While there are allegations made, all I can find is the allegations and nothing definitive, certainly not enough to meet WP:CRIME Shaws username . talk . 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and California. Shaws username . talk . 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tokyo DisneySea#Park layout and attractions as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DisneySea Transit Steamer Line[edit]

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

Found a few somewhat reliable mentions of it, but no WP:SIGCOV directly about the topic. popodameron ⁠talk 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Disney, Entertainment, and Japan. popodameron ⁠talk 22:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tokyo DisneySea#Park layout and attractions. Add a sentence or two about the steamboats to the opening paragraph; the boats are a unifying attraction across the park's various themes. There's numerous mentions, but unable to find substantive sources. Rupples (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rupples. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tasnim Isleem[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 Jordanian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was a few sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Jordan. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – more coverage is required for individual article. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putsil Valley[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Certainly does not meet GNG, and does not meet even the lenient standards of NGEO. There's nothing in the sources or that I could find that even confirms that the "Putsil Valley" exists. Two of the sources are advertisements for resorts and even they barely mention it. The other ref is to support a water use fact and is just a book en masse "Human Rights, Tribal Movements and Violence" Per the SNG I'm very lenient on geo/place articles but there's not even an RS factoid that says that a place by that name exists. North8000 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Odisha. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it might. A search for Putsil Odisha brought up a lot of ecotourism sites, but switching to Scholar I've found references to a folk song being from there, more information about the hydro power plant in several articles, and one reference in one unknown journal saying Bollywood movies were filmed there. Also mentioned in [12] at least. Poor article though. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage in the New Indian Express [13]... All I find otherwise are photos or blogs. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Putsil and make the article about the village of Putsil (or just a new article). I was interested in writing about the village, but it seems to actually be a pretty depressing/draining topic. 3df (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/move to Putsil. That appears to be a real place we don't have coverage of yet and what the sources are on, the valley is just a generic reference for around the Putsil Mountain. Reywas92^Talk 14:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage even though we can tell such a place exists but there is not enough data in the references to have this place have an article of its own. RangersRus (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Swinton Stadium[edit]

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

Article is mostly speculation about Swinton's never-ending search for a permanent home. A new article can always be created if a stadium proposal ever gets beyond the planning stages. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article purely speculation. Mn1548 (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speculation and not covered in sufficient detail in sources to warrant a separate article. This article is linked once in Swinton Lions article, but don't see value in redirecting there, as this stadium doesn't exist, and the article doesn't mention it by this name. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Name checks, nothing substantive found. Rupples (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tucker Carlson. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker Carlson Network[edit]

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

No evidence of sufficient non routine coverage. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tucker Carlson. In future it might have the notability for an article but I don't think it does at the moment. The coverage is either the launch announcement, or mentioned as part of his Vladimir Putin Interview. It's worth merging to Tucker Carlson in my opinion but is too soon for it's own article. Shaws username . talk . 20:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tucker Carlson for reasons given above. Doesn't really have an identity independent of Carlson at this stage.

Jbt89 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tucker Carlson per nom. and Jbt89. Sal2100 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above; this simply is not a 24/7 television network and should be written currently as if it is one. This is the 'one guy with a podcast and a website' type of network that should not be using WP:TV templates. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth it spreading the Russian propaganda Kasperquickly (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Tucker Carlson - WP:TOOSOON, it could possibly warrant a its own article in the future if it really blows up. However, no way to know that right now. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tucker Carlson: it's not "not" notable, but it's only notable within the context of tucker carlson. per above, WP:TOOSOON. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Finch (Person of Interest)[edit]

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

No claim to fame. The article is a victim of fancruft, solely describing the character in an in-universe style, and worst of all, it has no reception, which is a necessary part of WP: Notability (fictional characters). ''Flux55'' (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Reads like a fandom article. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It even is a Fandom article. A note at the bottom says that "As of this edit, this article uses content from "Harold Finch" [at Fandom]", with "this edit" pointing to the very first edit, i.e. article creation. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing is sourced, except to the show itself. I can't find any RS that discusses the character at length... Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not even any coverage for the show past 2016; what's found are all articles discussing a particular episode, nothing about the character. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find WP:SIGCOV for this character. Mostly the show or the actor. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only mentions. reads like a fandom as mentioned above, and not WP:SIGCOV per Shooterwalker Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WSFJ-TV. or the Ohio list referenced. That can be re-targeted if needed. What's clear is the consensus for a redirect, target doesn't need continuation of AfD which is unlikely to garner participation as indicated by prior weeks Star Mississippi 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQMC-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage beyond routine business transaction reports in industry sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WSFJ-TV: that may sound unorthodox, but it seems like much of what has happened to this station have tied in to changes at that station. This was a run-of-the-mill TBN repeater until TBN swapped it for WSFJ, which gave W23BZ its "own" programming and made it a bit less "non-notable", but that was only good for something on its own in the pre-2021 looser "notability standards". WQMC-LD later ended up becoming "Urban One TV" (and no, that press release posted on the website of co-owned WXMG does not count toward notability, what with the lack of independence and all) on March 1, 2021 — the same day Scripps, which had ended up with WSFJ by way of Ion, shuttered Ion Plus and took Bounce TV from WQMC. This station feels like one of those that should have more significant coverage than it does (especially since there is also a Telemundo affiliation), but runs into such coverage being less likely to be generated within this century. (Alternatively, this is also one of those rare times where I'm more willing to consider a redirect to List of television stations in Ohio#LPTV stations than has even been considered in any of these AfDs.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect if someone is willing to add content to the article to go along with it. Ben Azura (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Deere[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:N or that there is a good WP:ATD. This ahs been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found this, it seems like a RS [14], but it's not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing (1) some routine coverage of the publication of his new books, (2) a couple of passing mentions of his name in articles on other topics, (3) some advertisements, and (4) a couple of book reviews. None of that seems like it meets the threshold for notability.

— Moriwen (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be good to check for a pass of WP:NAUTHOR: if multiple of his books pass WP:NBOOK with 2 reviews, that would be a NAUTHOR pass. The Christianity Today book review linked above as "routine coverage" is by no means routine coverage; it is an NBOOK-qualifying source for Even in Our Darkness (as long as it is an independent RS, which I do not know). If a second review for that book is found, that book passes NBOOK and he's part of the way along to NAUTHOR. (Routine coverage in an NBOOK context would be this kind of thing.) Note than an NAUTHOR pass does not require biographical coverage of the author. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the Christianity Today review there is also this piece in the Publisher's Weekly here which states that two of his books sold 400,000 copies combined which suggests there should be reviews. I found this review here and a number of reviews listed in Google Books but i didn't get any previews, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to review the newly proposed sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Most of what appears in a quick google is blogs and other unreliable sources but I found a couple more CT articles(probably paywalled) a full review] of his first book when it was published and news coverage of his firing from DTS. He looks to meet WP:AUTHOR, I think. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as WP:G11‎. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: WP:UPE sockfarm creation. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rao And Sapru. (non-admin closure) GSS ^💬 20:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Films[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Written in a way to appear WP:INHERENTly notable based on films; however, it is considered a company so references must meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unfortunately, references are all about the films, brief mentions, churnalism, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am also just seeing this so could be a G5 candidate once a CU is available. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Yint Aung (footballer, born 2000)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I'm unable to find any significant coverage in secondary sources having searched in English and Burmese. My ability to search in Burmese is limited, and further impacted by the existence of Yair Yint Aung, whose name in Burmese is spelled the same as this topic. Still, I attempted to search in Burmese by including search terms for teams that this subject has played on, and didn't find any coverage more significant than brief mentions in lineups or match summaries. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~I found Myanmar Digital News in addition to the transfer report already in the article but I don't think that it's enough for GNG.~~ Scratch that, sorry, that article is about Ye Yint Aung. The 2000 born one doesn't seem to be notable at all. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GNG established with SIGCOV met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matheus Machado (footballer, born 2003)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I was unable to find any coverage in secondary sources about this player, instead coming across material about the more notable Matheus Machado even when searching using additional terms relating to the career attested at the subject article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Belgium, and Brazil. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found this [15] and was able to ascertain that it's in-depth direct coverage. Geschichte (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There sufficient coverage to establish WP:GNG [16] [17] [18]. Svartner (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above, some good commentary on the footballer's football work Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFES Insurance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No indication of significance. Brochure advert scope_creep^Talk 17:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have speedied this, non-notable insurance broker, 6mths old. No coverage found for this business. Oaktree b (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this reads a bit promotionally. i found a few press releases online but that doesn't seem to work for wikipedia notability Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. Fails NCORP requirements. Rupples (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mass shootings in the United States in 2024. It was in the news, but that does not make it notable as required for such articles. However this is a viable AtD. Star Mississippi 03:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New York City Subway shooting[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. A fight that turned into an unfortunate shooting. Many of these happen across the good ol' US every month. Lettlre (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, United States of America, and New York. Lettlre (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While tragic, this appears to be a run of the mill fight between two groups of teenagers. It is probably not notable as a standalone article per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME. The NYPD is currently operating under the assumption that this was not random. Numerous people are killed in the subway every year, some of whom have been shot, so this really does seem like a non-notable breaking news article at this time (i.e. I'm not seeing how this is different from other incidents where passengers were killed). – Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no issue with redirecting to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous people are killed in the subway every year, some of whom have been shot, so this really does seem like a non-notable breaking news article at this time..."

I disagree. Reuters says that [s]hootings are especially uncommon: in 2022, when a man with a handgun injured 10 people on a train passing through Brooklyn, it was the first mass shooting attack on the subway system since 1984. It's only been the second one since 1984. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been the second one since 1984.
— User:Wikiexplorationandhelping 04:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
A minute of searching turned up this shooting from 2007 where four people were shot. In addition, I'm not sure you can disagree with the fact that numerous people are killed in the subway each year; there were 11 people killed in 2022 for example. If you're disagreeing with my comment that this doesn't seem notable, then that's fair, but I do think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and that all coverage of the shooting thus far is breaking news coverage, which falls under WP:PRIMARYNEWS. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wait. Per WP:Deadline, there is no need to immediately delete just yet. This article was just created. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, plenty of sources exist from a Google News research. There is even coverage on Reuters, Associated Press, and Al Jazeera. So I would say this would pass GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources (specifically, breaking news or eyewitness news sources describing the shootings); they are certainly reliable and independent, but secondary sources would also be needed to prove the lasting notability of an event. This is also an issue I brought up at the stabbing-spree AFD three weeks ago. So I'm going to repeat what I said there: WP:PERSISTENCE states that "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." None of these sources show any evidence of persistent coverage; they are all reporting on breaking news.
Since, as you point out, there is no deadline, it should not hurt to wait to create such articles until significant coverage, not just primary news sources, do exist. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rather routine coverage of a subway shooting. The article now is barely half a paragraph long. At best, it could get a mention in an article about "New York in 2024" but nothing notable about this event needing an article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That has changed somewhat. I've made quite some improvements since. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We've been here before with the exact same user creating the deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 New York City stabbing spree (and with the same exact reason to keep, that 'we need time before it gets deleted'). @Wikiexplorationandhelping:, please find another interest area to contribute to or learn how to build an article in draftspace, as this is tiring to argue; it's an average crime for the area and hardly anything that would get notice outside the first-day burst of coverage. Nate • (chatter) 19:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this different is that somebody died, and the suspect(s) is(are) not in custody as of this comment. There's likely going to be some sustained coverage for a little while. If this article gets deleted, I'll try to go through AfC whenever I create a New York City event article. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Whether someone died has nothing to do with a subject's notability.

2. It's not "sustained coverage" if we're getting updates on an ongoing situation. That's just regular coverage. Sustained coverage would be if years from now they write articles or books looking back on this.

3. We don't write articles based on what there's going to be, we write articles based on what there already is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, this subject lacks coverage from secondary sources as it stands and it is unclear if this event will have lasting notability. Let'srun (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024. Agree with the WP:NOTNEWS concerns here but redirection is a good WP:ATD in case this ends up being notable (though that seems unlikely). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One death, just another unremarkable shooting in NYC. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question What is in essence the difference with (non-fatal) 2022 New York City Subway attack? 64.141.44.242 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 attack received a significant and lasting amount of media coverage outside of the New York area, this one hasn't. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Happens everyday in the US.

Elizzaflanagan221 (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2024 per Elli. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are still continuous updates on this event, as seen with US News, and ABC7. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are still WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect NOTNEWS applies, all of the sources are just news updates. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and insignificant coverage. There have been hundreds, if not thousands, of such attacks on the New York City Subway. Even though they receive local coverage almost immediately, most of them do not end up as articles on Wikipedia. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 11:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per sigcov. Clearly this has received plenty of media coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redir to list of US mass shootings in 2024 per Elli JoshuaAuble (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any sustained coverage of this shooting. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS. it would not really make sense, especially as this is relatively not rare. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Globally[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haider Mehdi[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage directly about him. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Iftikhar Ahmad[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fixed the formatting on all 4 existing references at this article, which it definitely needed ... 2 references are from The Express Tribune and The News International newspapers (both reliable sources). Also, the existing reference from the Embassy of Pakistan in France has his in-depth Profile and career details in it. In my view, considering his two decades long career, he meets WP:DIPLOMAT...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that WP:DIPLOMAT is an essay and is no longer an acceptable guideline to cite. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 4 provided sources are primary. Coverage is routine and not indepth to meet WP:BIO. 00:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)
Delete per LibStar Aaron Liu (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halit Armay High School[edit]

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

This article fails to the criteria layout in WP:GNG and also in WP:NSCHOOL has tagged as unreferenced since 2011 and after a quick search I believe it would fail WP:SIGCOV as well. 1keyhole (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cannot find any RS that are independent from the subject and don't merely involve a passing mention. Aintabli (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any substantial coverage under the Turkish name Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tractors built by other companies[edit]

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

Non notable sub-list. Emerging consensus to delete on talk page RM. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 16:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 16:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a rather random collection of information. Rebadging and outsourcing of tractor manufacturing should appear in the model article, when available. Not combined in a list. gidonb (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and not particularly useful. 162 etc. (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of sources and context makes the article very hard to understand. And even with the explanation on the talk page which clarifies the scope I still can't really understand what each entry is trying to convey. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TNT. lack of sourcing makes this near-impossible to maintain, especially as this would be great for promotion. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JENESYS U-17 Women's Football Memorial Cup[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I'm unable to find any significant coverage in independent sources. The cited writeup from the Japan Ministry of Foreign Affairs further seems to suggest that this tournament only comprises friendly matches, raising questions about whether it would be WP:DUE to merge to Japan Football Association's list of tournaments. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Zero relevance. Just a friendly U17 competition without established notability. Svartner (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsurprisingly, an under-17s friendly tournament doesn't garner enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – very clearly irrelevant. Idiosincrático (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of many competitions of this type with a lack of sourcing to show this meets the WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Let'srun (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial independent sourcing. there are a few blogs, though they aren't reliable and sports organizations have a bar. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nessie (film)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to brief interviews with the production team in local publications. My WP:BEFORE attempt only turned up sources about other Loch Ness-related media released in 2023. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Scotland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If present coverage (and other articles existing online) is deemed insufficient, given the Marbella nominations and Monaco award received, a ~~redirect~~ to Loch Ness Monster in popular culture#Literature and film (an article that could benefit from additional material and sources) -with transfer of a few sources and notes- could, imv, be considered.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting it without a mention at the target is not appropriate, and adding a mention at the target without proper sourcing on the overarching topic (Loch Ness Monster in popular culture) that mentions the film is fundamentally a non-starter. TompaDompa (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words: I had added the mention of the film to the target page, and with a source, but you removed it because you didn't want it mentioned there. So that the film is now indeed not mentioned at the target but it would be if you hadn't reverted my addition twice. Am I allowed to sigh? I have no further comments, I'm afraid. Other users will decide what they think is best.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident you understand that this is not a source on the overarching topic of Loch Ness Monster in popular culture. You had indeed added "a source", but not an adequate one for the purpose. TompaDompa (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Merritt, Mike (2023-07-16). "Loch Miss Monster - Inverness Cinema Won't Screen New Film Director Baffled as the Home of Nessie Refuses to Show Movie". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "A new film about the Loch Ness Monster has been snapped up by every cinema it has been offered to - except in Inverness, the home city of Nessie. Movie bosses say they are "baffled" over why Eden Court Theatre turned down the film - while the other eight cinemas in the first tranche have taken it. Paul MacDonald-Taylor, head of film and visual arts for Eden Court, said ... "My issue with Nessie is it seems to be made for a foreign market who look at Scotland in a very particular and more touristy way and this kind of film wouldn't work as well with our audience. Especially with the postsummer holiday release that they are planning when there would be fewer tourists in the area. If it was a film similar to their previous release that had Scotland as the backdrop for an interesting story and not as the product, then we would have looked at showing it." ... It seems to be made for a foreign market who look at Scotland in a very particular and more touristy way."
2. Neil, Sandy (2022-07-08). "Nessie comes to Loch Awe". The Oban Times. Archived from the original on 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "A comedy about the fabled Loch Ness monster was shot by Loch Awe last month, as Argyll’s spectacular locations continue to attract film crews. The movie about ‘Nessie’, which weaves plotlines from the Scottish classics Local Hero and Whisky Galore, is made by the same team behind Dracula on Holiday and The Right Bus, which were showcased in the Highlands last year. ... The film also stars Scottish actor John Michie, seen on screen as DI Robbie Ross in Taggart and Karl Munro in Coronation Street. Michie plays Jimmy, a hardy soul who helps to mastermind a way to prevent the village from losing its fortune. ... Nessie is directed by Robbie Moffat and produced by Mairi Sutherland, under the British film company Palm Tree. The team, alongside production manager Rachael Sutherland, have been based at Loch Aweside’s Ardbrecknish House. Robbie, the director, was delighted to have such a cast and such a ‘beautiful’ setting as Loch Awe. While some filming was done at Loch Ness itself, the ‘stunning’ Argyll locations include Portsonachan Hotel, the Portsonachan Village Hall, lochside houses and the beach. Further afield, the crew filmed at Oban’s Glencruitten Golf course, Blarcreen House at Ardchattan and Oban Airport. The shoot ran from June 6 until July 5."
3. Crow, Allan (2023-09-25). "Fife link revealed as new Nessie movie comes to the region". Fife Today. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "The movie starring John Michie from Taggart, Tanya Fear from Dr Who, and Dynsast legend, Stephanie Beacham is showing at Glenrothes Kino from Friday (September 29), to the delight of Mairi Sutherland, executive producer, whose family hailed from Leven. ... Nessie. It had its premiere at the Grovenor Cinema in Glasgow in August and since then it has shown in 11 cinemas across Scotland in the central belt and as far away as Oban, Annan and Edinburgh."
4. Merritt, Mike (2023-06-25). "Blockbuster Loch Ness monster movie was filmed miles away in Argyll". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2023-06-25. Retrieved 2024-02-16.
  The article notes: "A new movie about Nessie has its own secret – it wasn’t filmed on Loch Ness. Director Robbie Moffat decided not to shoot scenes for Nessie at Loch Ness, instead choosing Loch Awe, in Argyll, as it was much more accessible for crews. But the film – which cost £500,000 to make – still includes stunning Highland scenery. ... In Nessie she plays Heather, the lawyer love interest for Geordie, who runs boat tours on Loch Ness. He is played by Jason Harvey."
5. Bunn, George (2023-10-11). "Scriptwriting barrister has a monster hit on her hands!: Family film Nessie is now in cinemas". The Sentinel. ProQuest 2873006221. Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via PressReader.
  The article notes: "Catherine O'Reilly and actor husband Tim Churchill have been writing scripts from their Stone home for the last 10 years. ... Now Catherine and co-writer Tim have had their latest work - Nessie - given the big screen treatment. The family film follows a Scottish village on the banks of Loch Ness who are awarded $50 million in the will of an eccentric monster-loving U.S. billionaire. ... The film had its premiere in Cannes. It's currently in cinemas in Scotland."
6. Liptrott, Sharon (2023-09-08). "Virtual feast of films at cinema this week. What's on by Sharon Liptrott". Dumfries & Galloway Standard. ProQuest 2861922212. Archived from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-16 – via The Free Library.
  The article notes: "The Scottish-made Nessie (PG) film comes to Annan this week after running in more than 10 indie cinemas in the Central Belt, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Mairi Sutherland of Sunset Entertainment helped to make the film as executive producer, location manager and now distributor. ... The film is about a village which attempts to validate the existence of The Loch Ness Monster. Jimmy the village committee chairman is informed by letter that the village has been left $50 million by a rich American industrialist in order to improve the life of the villagers. Incensed by the size of the legacy, the American industrialist's son Brad hires an Edinburgh law firm to contest his father's wishes and a young female solicitor, Heather, is dispatched to the Highland village to await further instructions."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Nessie to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Record is a national newspaper that covered Nessie twice (Merritt 2023a and Merritt 2023b). Reliable sources have covered Nessie's production (Neil 2022), controversy over why Inverness, the home city of Nessie, did not screen the film (Merritt 2023a), and its theatrical releases (Liptrott 2023). There is enough coverage for Nessie to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical of the quality of the Daily Record coverage, considering that they call it a "blockbuster" despite having only been screened in indie cinemas and not having drawn any critics' reviews. The article reads like an interview with the film's creators. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merritt 2023b has the headline "Blockbuster Loch Ness monster movie was filmed miles away in Argyll". The word "blockbuster" is mentioned in the headline only and not in the body of the article. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Headlines says:
News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.
I consider the headline to be unreliable but the body of the article to be reliable. Merritt 2023a and Merritt 2023b contain several quotes from people affiliated with the film. The articles contain sufficient non-interview content to amount to significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep in light of the sources found and presented by Cunard. Coverage seems fairly sufficient to warrant an article on the film. Thanks a lot.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources cited by Cunard. There is enough coverage of this project to warrant an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blade Runner (franchise)#Books. (non-admin closure) IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blade Runner 4: Eye and Talon[edit]

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

Article cites no sources, and no strong sources came up in my search. I tried the Wikipedia Library, OpenBooks, Google News, and Newspapers.com. No review or in-depth coverage. The best source I could find was this piece in ScreenRant, which covers a few snippets of the plot. I don't think the article could be built on such a source, and doing so would not get us into compliance with WP:NBOOKS#Articles that are plot summaries and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blade Runner (franchise)#Books - I am only finding very brief mentions of the book, such as the ScreenRant fluff piece linked to in the nomination. For example, this article, which goes in depth on the first of Jeter's Blade Runner books, briefly mentions this sequel at the end, but it does nothing more than state that it exists. Likewise, this article, which is an overview of the various spinoff media of the franchise, mentions it, but has no actual coverage or discussion about it beyond that. From what I can see, only the first of Jeter's Blade Runner books, Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human, actually got any significant coverage. That said, the Blade Runner franchise article has a section for these books already, with a quick plot summary, so redirecting there would be preferable over deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestion. Please consider me a redirect !vote also. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge. I tried Booklist, Kirkus, and Publishers Weekly for reviews, with no luck. I suggest "merge" because it would be nice for the plot synopsis at Blade Runner (franchise)#Books to spell out the ending (more spoilers and less "hook"), so drawing on the very long plot summary in this article could be useful to add two more sentences to the franchise page. In general redirect is the right alternative to deletion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blade_Runner_(franchise)#Books per above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blade Runner (franchise)#Books: reviews online are merely in context of the franchise. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled A. L. Vijay film[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. Film does not yet exist and does not have a title. Right now coverage is more just about the "event" of announcing in November 2023 that they plan to make a film. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have said Dratify but as the case has been where many such drafts get added back to the mainspace, its better off to delete it. Way too early for an unnamed movie to have a page of its own. There is not enough significant coverage and there is no title given to the film. RangersRus (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Sculpture-Network[edit]

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

Grant-funded projects like this come and go and rarely turn out to have any enduring notability. This article has been tagged as unreferenced for 10 years and, while dewiki lists some publications and press releases from the project itself, I haven't been able to find the independent coverage needed to meet our threshold for inclusion here on enwiki. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Germany. – Joe (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or alternatively selective Merge to Berlin State Museums. At least the article is much shorter than the Berliner Skulpturennetzwerk article on German Wikipedia, so it isn't a WP:BLOWITUP candidate! I can see suggestions that this is an important project, for example journal articles [19] [20], though the majority of online info appears to be on museum or university websites. Sionk (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of archaeology and history books[edit]

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

There must be thousands of archaeology and history books, so by definition this list is a subset of all possible books determined by interested editors. WP:NOTEVERYTHING and not needed - for navigation purposes there are relevant categories JMWt (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. JMWt (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to bibliography of archaeology or merge to Bibliography of anthropology#Archaeology per WP:ATD. Personally I agree that bibliographic lists tend to devolve into indiscriminate collections of information, but like it or not they are a thing. This a decent start on a bibliography for archaeology and absent a consensus against bibliographies as a whole, I don't think we can start selectively deleting them. I suggest renaming for consistency with other bibliographies and because the it only lists archaeology titles. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Overly broad topic, no need to merely name unrelated books on an expansive field like this. Respective subtopics could include biblographies, no need for one on archaeology and history as a whole. Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SALAT as an overly broad list that can be either woefully incomplete or extensive to the point of uselessness. Owen× ☎ 23:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets GNG and MUSICBIO satisfied. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clementine Douglas[edit]

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

Page was created on 17 January. Not many sources/references... Regards – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 L1amw90 (🗣️ talk to me • ✍️ contribs) 12:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what's the basis for deletion? Top 10 UK single and national award: satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:MUSICBIO #5, could do with expanding but not in need of deletion. Shaws username . talk . 13:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is only one paragraph, the only source of any substance is one created by the artist herself or her fan base, and in the songs mentioned she was only a collaborating artist. My research has only found one independent song by her. I think a WP article about her at this point is premature. Uppagus (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear cut WP:MUSICBIO #5. She is within Wikipedias guidelines for inclusion. WP:GNG does also apply.BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Fatima Sehgal[edit]

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

Non-notable writer and poet. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamiebuba: Please can you tell me with how this can be made notable?

~~~~ Aysha Ayshaipath (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I can't find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, apart from routine coverage of her book launch. Wikishovel (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER article creator has said that "I work for a company as a social media content writer, and where the company has a direct link with the content I write and submit here." but they have NOT disclosed this correctly anywhere. Theroadislong (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this has been rectified Ayshaipath (talk) 09:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, poorly referenced, and offering no evidence of notability, with likely COI to boot. I suppose draftifying would also be an option, if the author disclosed their COI and agreed to put this through AfC, although if these are the best sources that can be found that AfC path would only ever lead to rejection. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what is afc? Ayshaipath (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same creating editor also created Draft:Resilient Pakistan, which is a self-published book written by Sehgal. David notMD (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Speedy Keep (nomination withdrawn). Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Neutral atom quantum computer[edit]

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

This article describes 2023 results. While the topic might become suitable for a page, it is too soon. As yet there is no evidence of extensive citing or other secondary results (beyond science blogs). Ldm1954 (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is still valid without the 2023 results. Neutral atom quantum computers were proposed in the late 90s. Vtomole (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the term is well established in academic literature, including the prestigious Nature journal. Current sourcing can be improved, but existing SIGCOV already establishes notability. Owen× ☎ 15:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep it is clearly one of the main competing quantum computing architectures availables. See people like QuEra Computing Inc. who have been working on that for a while. The article is not the best but it can be improved. Edit: This implementation can also be found in many textbooks.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Review paper has almost 3000 citation; the 2023 Nature article has 40 citations. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination as others feel it is notable. Keep Ldm1954 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youssof Altoukhi[edit]

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

Subject described as a "youth activist" with no reference justifying that. Doesn't satisfy GNG - no claim to notability. Despite claim in article, the subject delivered a TEDx talk, not a TED talk; pretty much anyone can organise and speak at the former. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - was very commercial-looking crypto-flavoured spam before I cleaned that out, leaving very little else - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable and of promotional nature. Aintabli (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Johnson (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV on a WP:BLP. Refs are cast lists and passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to falling short of GNG, it's worth noting that the claims of having won awards (or even of being a filmmaker) appear to be a bit of an exaggeration, as Johnson's role in Lady Gaga's work was that of a producer (i.e. a finance role, not a creative one, unless otherwise indicated), and he is not listed as a prize recipient for the music video in the cited writeup of the award in question [21]. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PLADES[edit]

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

Non-notable. WP:BEFORE leads to no results (even in Spanish) except own website, a few reports authored by the organization, database entries. Broc (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Peru. Broc (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Air source heat pump. selectively, as noted. Language is an issue for the sourcing and discussion thereof. Consensus isn't going to emerge here to delete, and the only person arguing for retention is the article's creator. Star Mississippi 16:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute[edit]

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

This might have been an exceptional product when the article was created but now I suspect it is just one among many. So I think it should be merged to air source heat pump Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Japan. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a weird one, it's largely sourced to technical documentation, some primary, some not. It's well-sourced, but I'm not sure the sources are enough of a reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
have now bolded that i propose merge not delete Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EcoCute is trade name, but widely used by Japanese manufacture and marketing.

As referred in external link, millions of unit installed in Japan and may be marketed to other area. EcoCute is a type of heat pump, and some Japanese mfg. apply EcoCute technologies to Air to Water (A2W) pump for Europe market. I agree EcoCute to be marge into heat pump as type of one tech. method. Namazu-tron (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Namazu-tron: Thanks - as far as I understand it EcoCute is only air source not ground source or water source. If I understood right then it might be better to merge into air source heat pump rather than heat pump I suppose. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is air source heat pump. Pls pay attention in marge process, not to neglect advantage of EcoCute description and feature.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute is already installed millions of units in Japan, and probably marketed in other area based on technical advantage.

It is state in article EcoCute (Japanese: エコキュート, Hepburn: ekokyūto) is an energy-efficient electric heat pump in head description.

Article “Heat Pump” does not refer EcoCute in its text, and Ecocute article simply refer in See also section.

It means Article EcoCute is well satisfy to “not delete” and eligible to be exist as an article alone, and user may understand two article EcoCute and Hear pump each other.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely technical and legal documentation, none of which provides notability. I can't find sources for this industrial equipment. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: @Namazu-tron: @Oaktree b: As one of you wants to keep and the other delete could you both compromise and let me merge this as I originally proposed? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I added external link Heat-pump-increased-production-of-japanese-version-ecocute in Europe market recently 2023. Ecocute is tradename but widely used Japanese manufacture might be trade name right holder for deployment not only in Japan and aiming in Europe as well. So far, only 3 users participating this marge/delete discussion. My first edit as new article was 23:58, 7月 10, 2008. I see your write up histories for many other articles. Let’s wait for other uses comment and no need to be rushed.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly merge, fine, this isn't notable enough to have an entire section in that article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is no delete, nor Wikipedia:Merging and nor Wikipedia:Redirect.

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding.

Now, The fact today is that millions of EcoCute unit used in houses and industries in Japan, and globally most people facing the Periodization of Climate variability and change and Climate change. Energy and cost cut/effective hot water making is demanded in global scale for CO₂ reduction worldwide market in Europe/north & south America, South Asia, Oceania. EcoCute is trademark of Kansai Electric Power Company (KEPC) does not produce EcoCute.

Every power companies include KEPC, house maker/big and small house contractor recommend EcoCute to user on fair market competition. KEPC hold trademark, and my guess is, trademark EcoCute is to permit naming as Ecocute to use every 20-30 manufactures, may be coming year into Europe and/or America martket opening when minimum requirement satisfied, and KEPC will allow variety of EcoCute Specification (technical standard) depend on market and producer. With trademark registered, nobody can make and sell cute/charming toy with naming of EcoCute, for example, it prevent EcoCute be confused and disturbed in market where CO₂ emission decrease under people’s wish.

I believe that, KEPC is willing to diffusion (business) of EcoCute not only in Japan, globally worldwide in hope of cut CO₂ emission reduction. Naming of EcoCute is only applicable for hot water making and supply system Air source heat pump with Refrigerant by CO₂ as commercialize first country under corporation with Norwegian/German physicist, as described in Etymology and other section, and not applicable no supplying hot water machine such as air conditioner nor refrigeration system.

I hope users, herein discussion, to improve context of article EcoCute with big hope as contributing editor rather than delete/marge.

I mean to keep/improve article EcoCute is really contribution not only Wikipedia but also global problem. EcoCute placed in Japanese market by Corona Corporation (コロナ) in May 2001 and more than 20 years passed. Technologies for EcoCute seems already well matured/completed, it seems, and not enough sources even in Japanese, as far as I look for web site, most available sources are for marketing purpose. I will improve article EcoCute as well as I can, my an excuse is not pay attention even on Talk page after first edit in/around in 2008, my contribution on other article both English and Japanese edition, but not so frequent. Thank you.@ Namazu-tron (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments and analysis on the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Sigma (Mega Man X)[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination on behalf of User:Kung Fu Man, as he has made it clear he believes the article is non-notable. His stated rationale is: "Character's whole article is held up by short mentions or lists, doesn't really meet notability". As one of the article's authors, I disagree with its soft deletion, therefore I am nominating it to go through a full discussion to see if it's really non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused why you led with pushing it to AfD, or chose to open a AfD on my behalf instead of a talk page discussion. I would have preferred that as AfD is not for cleanup. That said, ref [26] is the strongest one here. But then there's stuff like Ref [24] which is just bizarre (comparing Sigma from Overwatch to this Sigma) to use because it's not really commentary and closer to a bad Valnet article? Not to mention [22] which is also...really not saying anything.

In any event, I would've been down for a discussion if you felt I overlooked some sources instead of "you can't BLAR you must AfD!"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "bizarre" source is not a disqualifier except apparently in your opinion. It's a legitimate comparison, that may indicate some inspiration, and an example of significant coverage. And I was forced to create a procedural AfD, as you went beyond the BRD cycle by reverting twice. The alternative would have been attempting to edit war. I would have preferred to discuss after a single revert, but I had no choice in the matter. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I have a talk page, and as I stated on your talk page, I misunderstood the situation. It has been a trend of editors forcing BLAR's to go through AfDs instead lately. I honestly just request this be Withdrawn.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose withdrawing, as I feel like it can just lead to another BLAR down the line. Its notability has been questioned, in no uncertain terms, ensuring it is notable is important to maintain the article's stability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reception section has commentary on varied aspects of the character by various secondary sources, thus fulfilling WP:WHYN/notability requirements. We have a not-so-short article with lots of non-plot information. So I see no reason for deletion, nor an advantage in a merge to a character list. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not voting at this stage, but I wanted to share the assessment I made of the sources listed to gather other editors' views / challenge my assessment first:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1 - 2: Sigma Voices (Mega Man) (Behind The Voice Actor)				✘ No
3: X Characters (Mega Man Homepage)	~ Authorized by Capcom	~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert	71 words	✘ No
4: Mega Man X (Mega Man Homepage)	~ Authorized by Capcom	~ Self-published website, unclear if author is a subject-matter expert		✘ No
5: Mega Man X (Capcom)				✘ No
6: E3 2017: Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite Has Infinite Potential (Hardcore Gamer)			No analysis of Sigma	✘ No
7: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Trailer Unleashes DLC Fighters Black Panther and Sigma (WCCF Tech)			Excluding the press release excerpt	✘ No
8 - 9 - 10 - 12 - 13 - 14 - 15: Mega Man X Official Complete Works (UDON Entertainment Corp)	Capcom identified as author			✘ No
11: Inafune Denies Cataclysm Theory+Answers Your Questions! (Rockman Corner)	~ Primary source (Q&A)	~ Self-published website / blogger	70 words	✘ No
16: This Mega Man X Sigma figure is absolutely amazing (Destructoid)				✘ No
17: The Brutal Lessons Gaming Taught Me About Revolutions, Robots, And War (Kotaku)			Incidental mentions	✘ No
18: 30th anniversary Capcom character encyclopedia (DK Games)	Despite being licensed/authorized by Capcom, author is separate from Capcom		One page (150-200 words), same as 200+ other Capcom characters	✔ Yes
19: Bless the Never Ending Bug Robots That Help Me Beat Sigma in Mega-Man X (Destructoid)				✘ No
20: Best SNES Bosses Fights Ever All Time (Den of Geek)			~ More a discussion of Mega Man X's game design	~ Partial
21: How Mega Man X rewrote the player/character relationship (Eurogamer.net)				✘ No
22: Why The Mega Man X and Minecraft Crossover Is Cool But Ultimately Upseting (IGN)			No analysis of Sigma	✘ No
23: Playing God: The ever-changing morals of Mega Man's sci-fi allegory (The A.V. Club)			76 words (being generous)	✘ No
24: Sigma vs. Sigma: The Comparison We Had To Make (Kotaku)		~ A case of editorial discrection - From the tone of the article, this is clearly intended as humour, not a reliable analysis - Does this prove notability? Weakly unless there are other articles mentioning the similarities between Sigma (Mega Man X) and Sigma (Overwatch)		~ Partial
25: Bonus Stage Magazine. No. 19 (Bonus Stage Magazine)			~ Limited outside of plot recap	~ Partial
26: O pós-humano, cyborgs e a (re)evolução do corpo em Mega Man Maverick Hunter X [The post-human, cyborgs and the (re)evolution of the body in Mega Man Maverick Hunter X] (Literatura e Autoritarismo)				✔ Yes
27: 《洛克人 X》系列人設水野佳祐專訪以小短褲側馬尾等元素描繪原創人物「RiCO 莉可」 (GNN Gamer)	~ Q&A with a Capcom staff member	?	~ One answer, unclear how this corresponds to 100 words in English	? Unknown
28: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite's Story Demo Feels Like Awkward Fanfiction (Kotaku)			Incidental outside of the plot recap	✘ No
29: Destructoid: Review Marvel vs Capcom Infinite (Destructoid)				✘ No
30: Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite Review (Den of Geek)			Incidental outside of the plot recap	✘ No
31: Best Fighting Game Final Bosses Street Fighter Mortal Kombat Tekken (Den of Geek)				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I'd also note that in my opinion several of these should be considered primary sources, in particular 20, 25 and 31, which cover Sigma as part of the critic's emotional response to the subject, not as part of a broader discussion or commentary on the themes the character expresses. Shazback (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of those sources as 'primary'? I have never seen anyone define a primary source in that way. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding based on the following policies, emphasis mine:

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary, or scholarly pieces.

The last sentence references Virginia Tech, which notes that:

Opinion reviews give the article's author's opinion about the book. The review will typically include a brief summary of the book, and could include discussion on writing style, audience level and the book author's area of expertise. Opinion reviews are published in newspapers, popular magazines and specialty publications like the New York Times Book Review.

Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources.

This is expanded upon in a footnote Wikipedia:No original research#cite_note-8:

Further examples of primary sources include: [...] editorials, op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources § News organizations); tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires [...].

There are essays discussing the articulation of these concepts, however as non-policy they can be disputed freely:

Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_sources#Fields_other_than_history:

In the fine arts, a work of art is always a primary source. [...] Statements made by or works written by the artists about their artwork might be primary or secondary. Critiques and reviews by art critics are usually considered secondary sources, although exceptions exist. For example, an account of the specific circumstances under which the critic viewed the artwork is primary material, as is the critics' description of their personal emotional reaction to the piece. As a result, some critiques and reviews are a mix of primary and secondary material.

Wikipedia:Frequently_misinterpreted_sourcing_policy#Editorials,_columns,_and_blogs_are_categorically_primary_sources:

Reviews (in the book, film, etc. sense; this doesn't mean academic literature reviews) are by nature subjective; a work cannot be said by WP to be "derivative", "thrilling", etc., based on them. Reviewer speculation about inspirations for, influences on, and meaning of a work are wholly subjective and unreliable, absent statements from the creators of the work, or numerous notable reviewers all concurring. For opinions on the tone, style, and characteristics of a work, we can quote/paraphrase reviewers with attribution in a due and balanced manner.

If there are specific other policies, guidelines or consensus elements I should be aware of, more than happy to take them into account. Shazback (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shazback: I think it's important to point out that reviews, with all their subjective elements, are an important and expected basis of articles on topics of fiction and should not be discounted (emphasis mine):

WP:ALLPLOT: articles about fiction [...] should also include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis
WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works
Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Information that may help provide the real-world discussion necessary for an encyclopedia article about a fictional topic includes reception, analysis, significance, development, legacy and influence, and relationships with or comparisons to other media.
Wikipedia:Notability (books): The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews.
Wikipedia:Notability (video games): A video game is appropriate for an article if it has been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer. Published sources include any reliable sources, such as newspapers, magazines, books, documentaries, websites, and consumer reports. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm in agreement with Darianos. I see several good sources already used in the article. This doesn't warrant a merge. MoonJet (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the circumstances of this AFD are strange to me, a procedural nomination on behalf of someone who does not want the article deleted, an editor who AFDed to avoid "another BLAR down the line", and an unclear discussion on WP:PRIMARY. This probably should have just been a merge discussion in the first place. As for my keep vote, the source analysis above proved there is a decisive WP:THREE here with other reliable sources as well (I do think they were a bit harsh on source judging). (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: far from a delete, merge (ehh) im in agreement with the source table above. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ladonia (micronation). Should editors wish to exercise editorial discretion and merge content from this article, the page history remains available. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Shelby[edit]

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

Very little indication that subject is notable. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent reliable secondary source is the BBC, and that's only a passing mention, which doesn't meet the notability criteria. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fascinating tidbit, but not enough coverage of this individual. Even what's used is one BBC story and the rest are primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to offer an opinion on whether to delete or not, but I think the Dagens Nyheter article should qualify as a reliable source (I've been told it is "The NY Times of Sweden", but that could be not entirely accurate). The article is a decent-length interview about how Ladonia will continue to function after the death of Lars Vilks.

I was surprised the original article was never nominated for deletion before, so I added (what I thought) was a better written article in tone/style and added some additional references. There are quite a few more interviews and articles where she is named only as the "Queen of Ladonia" or "Queen Carolyn", like podcast appearances, radio interviews, an interview on Al Jazeera (with Prince Michael of Sealand also on the panel), and a 15 minute segment on a German TV program called Galileo. There is also a chapter on Ladonia in a Swedish book called "Mikronationer" (and she is interviewed as well as on the cover of the book), and Lars Vilks' last book before his death (Nimis) talks about her role running Ladonia. I can dig up the links to the references, though I'd rather save the effort if the article is destined for deletion anyway. Kulib (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dagens Nyheter is a strong candidate to be seen as the newspaper of record in Sweden. It qualifies. /Julle (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I found a Mapping micronations (Al Jazeera, 2014) interview source. There is also a 2023 WGN Radio 720 interview ("Her Majesty is the host and coordinator of the 2023 MicroCon."). The 2022 BBC source seems to be more than a passing mention because it includes biographical information with context. A redirect to Ladonia (micronation) where she is mentioned and pictured seems supported. Beccaynr (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think with much of this article and available sources focused on Ladonia and/or the role of the monarch generally, instead of sourced information about Shelby, WP:PAGEDECIDE seems relevant to consider and further supports a redirect at this time. The Ladonia article 1) provides needed context to help understand Shelby, and Shelby is likely covered better there given the limited independent/secondary sourced information that appears to be available about her 2) the relationship between Shelby and Ladonia seems better appreciated in the context of the Ladonia article, 3) most sourcing does not appear to be independent or secondary, e.g. a book by Lars Vilks, interviews of Shelby. I am not able to access the Dagens Nyheter source but I did check the Wikipedia Library and only found a Spanish-language reprint of the BBC source. Beccaynr (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Drottningen av Ladonien: ’Vår plikt att röra oss framåt’" in Dagens Nyheter, which has been added since this was taken to AfD (and after the first couple of comments) ha longer coverage of Carolyn Shelby herself. "Utopidiplomati i ett låtsas-FN" in Ping (former magazine for sv:DIK, 20 November 2015, has slightly more than merely mentioning her in passing, but not at all the same level of information as the Dagens Nyheter article. I think the additions to the article since this discussion stared makes it keepable. /Julle (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further comments about the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the editors mentioning Dagens Nyheter. Also, given the reativey large amount of people involved in creating Ladonia (most micronations are things like a farmer in a dispute with the authorities), I would argue being their nominal leader would likely make her presumptively notable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per Beccaynr's analysis. Based on what I can access, the Dagens Nyheter article seems like it's largely based on an interview? Even if it isn't, we still have NOPAGE for these cases when a topic is better covered in another page. An article on Shelby will end up being somewhat of a coatrack for Ladonia governance, so covering her at Ladonia would be preferable.

JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 6 February 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seems to be almost nothing to say about this person, who "[serves] as the Queen and head of state of the Royal Republic of" something that's succeeded in being trademarked. Non-notable. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per improvements made since nom. The Dagens Nyheter source is helpful. Within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage in Swedish newspapers, but it is by no means extensive or in-depth. This suggests that the proper course of action is to mention Shelby at Ladonia (micronation) and delete this standalone bio. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is ok by me. Draken Bowser (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additions since nom, I think it would be a detriment to the Ladonia article to merge this article into it. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation) with history intact to enable the merger of sourced information. The sources are marginal for a BLP, but there's no need for actual deletion when her coverage is as part of a more clearly notable topic. In particular I would rather see the article kept rather than deleted if those are the only two options, but view a redirect with a partial merger as the best ultimate solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ladonia (micronation). This is a living subject and the article has very little in the way of reliable sources or direct detailing. I would prefer the page is deleted for BLP reasons, but can live with redirect as an alternative. BusterD (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrakill[edit]

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

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

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

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

After months of looking for sourcing for this article and monitoring it, I've come to the unfortunate conclusion that this early-access game falls just short of the general notability guidelines. While it has received some coverage from reliable sources, none have offered any critical commentary outside of a listicle. To my knowledge, the only site that has done that so far is Kotaku. Not even RPS gave any critical commentary.

Maybe when the game is out of early access it'll get proper reviews and worthy of a standalone page, but for now I think WP:TOOSOON applies. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as i said in the talk page, there were the 3 minimum sources... but one of them was about the sex update, which got removed twice for being about the sex update (funniest shit i've ever seen). if it can be reinstated and stay there, i think it can just barely stay cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The game is already very popular and well known in the retro shooter community, there are tons of Youtube videos about it that could be used as sources, the game already has sold over a million copies according to several tracker sites and it's to be expected that it will remain this popular throughout its early access period and its eventual release. Games nowadays can often remain in Early Access for a long time while actually already being well known and received. I'm not sure how exactly the sources are counted for notability, but I don't think they have to be reviewing the game just to prove that it's notable? It might not be enough to prove certain things about the game, but isnt the mere existence of several articles about it enough to prove that it's notable?Tajoshu (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per wp:rspyt, user-generated content, like youtube reviews where some guy talks about how ultrakill is like getting your blood replaced with adrenaline via the urethra or something, are considered unreliable. if it's a video from a source already considered reliable (like ign or something), it inherits its reliability. as is, though, not enough of those exist yet

that aside, my comment still stands that it at best only barely meets the minimum requirements if the statement on the sex update gets to rematerialize into the article cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 10:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The game already passes GNG even in its Early Access state, with previews in three reliable sources. I also found an additional piece of SIGCOV from a different PC Gamer author. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i added the sources :) idk i hope it's enough -twixbat (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if they're reliable enough but i added some more sources and reviews in the reception section! how many more does it need? (i added 2 more) -twixbat (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also i found some more im gonna add later but i have to go to school now so :( it will have to wait twix ✦ talk to me! 11:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
incidentally, should something be done about sources 4-22 all being ingame text? cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 11:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support, in addition to the dearth of reliable sources the article is written more like a fan guide than an objective overview Ivannilych (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what your "support" means, you are in favor of deleting or keeping the article? Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like they are in favor of deletion. But I should remind the user that deletion is not a substitute for cleanup (WP:NOTCLEANUP), nor is a lack of sources in the article grounds for deletion when sources exist that are unused in the article. (WP:NEXIST). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - Although the current article version is incredibly bloated by overly detailed gameplay, plot, a dozens of citations to game text (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP), the subject does seem to meet Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion (WP:GNG) based on sigcov in RS'es. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that third part was dealt with while you were typing this (probably), taking the other two back to the talk page, because it turns out i completely forgot to send a message ages ago cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 17:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's weak, but it seems to meet notability thresholds per other users' observations. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ultrakill is one of the most well known "boomer shooters" if not the most, and deleting this page is definitively a double-edged sword. On one hand this page is a useful reference for a quick overview of the game. But other the other hand, it contains numerous claims that are wrong or aren't fit for the game's Wikipedia page (that despite repeated edits to correct these issues, are bringed back for some reason). But I believe it would be best for it to be deleted or deactivated for the time being. There are already wikis dedicated specifically for the game and are actively maintained and updated with detailed information that better represent the current game. The lack of sources is obvious and there currently isn't really any solution, I've thought of possibly backing up information with the help of citations from the developer commentary streams (one of which that has released just last week, offering up-to-date information about many things). But the main issue is obviously more about the lack of any review on the game, and the few that exist date back to when the game's team was first merged with New Blood and that the game entered early access. These aren't as relevant anymore with how much the game has changed and expanded. Once the game reaches its full release and that a multitude of reviews start popping up again with information and critics that better reflect the game as it has become, then I believe it would be relevant again to have a new page for Ultrakill appearing here. I do want to point out that I'm not a common user of Wikipedia at all, this is just my conclusion as someone who often plays this game and is active in its community, I tried my best to inform myself on the deletion procedures but I might not have grasped some things correctly. I still stand by my opinion that this page doesn't currently need to exist considering its content. -FrizouWasThere (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. Its "content" is irrelevant and articles are a work in progress. What matters is whether there are sources to prove its notability, and there are numerous previews of the game. As long as the page is not a complete loss - and it's not - it can be fixed. It obviously still needs cleanup, but again, that's not relevant to a deletion discussion at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Out of an abundance of caution, I should disclose that I am the an administrator of the ULTRAKILL Miraheze Wiki, which is a potential conflict of interest.

I agree with zxcvbnm's judgement that ULTRAKILL passes the GNG guidelines and is fairly iconic nowadays even in its early access state, with a significant cultural influence in many spaces. In addition, it has likely sold upwards of a million copies and is very highly rated, which I believe makes it more noteworthy as well.

However, the article requires a rewrite at the very least. As I've previously mentioned concerning this article, Wikipedia is not a game guide and none of the information is essential for anyone interested in a general overview of what ULTRAKILL is — and, quite frankly, the article does not do a very good job of representing ULTRAKILL as a game either despite its gratuitous detail, largely missing its heavy stylish action influences and claiming that its movement mechanics resemble Quake and Doom, which they simply don't.

The Wikipedia article should only be concerned with a general overview of the game, instead of listing every weapon included in the game, going into detail about bonus content, hard damage, or including a whole paragraph about a mod that one of the developers made for the game. I think ULTRAKILL is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but the article's current iteration is of rather low quality. Corviraptor (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite I concur with the above that the game has reach fair notability among reputable sources, and it is likely to grow further as the game approaches its full release. I have taken it upon myself to rewrite sections of the article to better fit Wikipedia's style and scope. Feedback and edits are appreciated. PencilVoid (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now cites five independent sources (there were only two when I tagged it last month), four positive reviews and one report. The latter is the only one that makes an independent claim of popularity ("has been met by a new wave of positive user reviews for the already popular shooter"). Are positive reviews enough to establish notability? NebY (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a review's positive or negative doesn't actually matter? There have been games with completely negative reviews that are notable, see Ride to Hell: Retribution. All that matters is that reliable sources saw fit to mention the game in a significant way. So far, Kotaku, TheGamer, PC Gamer have all done so, in the case of PC Gamer, several times. This means it just scooches past notability criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input is clearly necessary...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It does just seem to edge over the line for notability, PC Gamer is reliable, the articles from Kotaku is from when it was reliable and TheGamer just before. Shaws username . talk . 11:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rewrite seems to have fixed most of the issues with the article's quality, and ULTRAKILL appears to pass GNG anyway. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 14:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sources to pass GNG StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite I agree with Corviraptor vghfr, harbinger of chaos 05:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mayors of Lynwood, California. ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leticia Vasquez[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, coverage is all WP:ROTM. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable found. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ The secondary sources are all fairly WP:ROTM for any local politician and not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 22:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California Shaws username . talk . 18:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to very obvious ATD >>>> List of mayors of Lynwood, California.Djflem (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California per Djflem. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mayors of Lynwood, California. ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Pedroza[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Some media coverage, though it is all WP:ROTM city going-ons. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, most of the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician, and the misuse of city funds trial [22] [23] doesn't meet the WP:CRIME standards. Overall not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN. Shaws username . talk . 12:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California Shaws username . talk . 18:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to very good ATD >>>> List of mayors of Lynwood, California Djflem (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Lynwood, California per Djflem. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No consensus to delete after multiple relistings and discussions. Slightly lean towards keep due to the changes made, but no clear consensus is established. Closing as no consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zau de Câmpie gas field[edit]

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

I searched for any news, books or other info to establish the notability of this gas field. Finding none, I proposed it for deletion. This was objected to and claims of adding important info were made. I redirected it to a relevant table, and it was undone. Again with claims of adding important information. I then tagged it for lacking significant coverage, that tag was removed no reason given. The information in the article now is derived from 6 sources. Here's a summary of those: In the first reference it is mentioned once in passing and is not the subject of the paragraph in which it is mentioned. In the second reference, it's mentioned twice in passing and is not the subject of the article. In the third reference it is mentioned once in passing, not as the subject. I can't translate the fourth reference but it is clearly from 1922 and is presented in the article as a reliable source for data in 2009 and 2010. The fifth reference is just a data sheet from a financial report or something. The sixth reference mentions it in passing, but it is not the subject of the source. None of these sources nor any of the info in the WP article say anything at all about this field being important in any way. So they don't establish significance, Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance, and gas fields are not covered very well by any policy. WP:GEO wants clear evidence of importance. I assert that it is a non notable run of the mill gas field with outdated info and should be deleted not redirected. Thus I submit it to AFD. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania. James.folsom (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article pertains to one of the oldest gas fields in Europe (discovered in 1914, continuously exploited since 1920), with a well-documented history, both in the academic press (e.g., Annals of the University of Oradea, Romanian Review of Regional Studies), news organizations articles (e.g., RFE/RL, MSNews), and various government and industry press releases, for a total of 10 references so far. This is not a "run of the mill" gas field; rather, it is one of the very few oil fields in Europe more than 100 years old (that's why it has references going back to 1922) and still in operation, at the center of an area that produces some 3/4 of Romania's natural gas output (itself 3rd in Europe after Holland and UK). The importance of the field to the economy of Romania is highlighted in a (restricted) CIA report from 1948 (made public in 2011), which mentions it specifically, devoting a whole paragraph to the Zau de Câmpie gas field. Furthermore, it is not at all the case that the information contained in the article is "outdated": there are several references from 2018–2022, some of them referring to current output, means of gas extraction or compression (62 drilling rigs in operation, new compressor), and fairly current (2017) estimates of reserves and prospects for further production extended up to 2029. Turgidson (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I realized I misspoke, by omitting details around my outdated comment. So I will explain. The article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, and things like what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article, and these things change from one year to the next so they would be out of date unless someone is constantly updating that. There are literally hundred of other articles about gas fields, and even more about oil fields, that are just like this. Who is going to keep all these trivial numbers updated annually? Furthermore the people who would want this info is not going to come to Wikipedia for. It's out place, but the problem is if you get rid of it there is no article.

- Comment It's true there are now ~~ten~~ 11 references, and some of them actually mention this place. None of them state this is an important gas field. At least one of the sources points out that being and old gas field is a bad thing. None of the provided references are significant coverage. I've thoroughly looked and I know there isn't any. Here's a breakdown of the claimed important coverage:
  - The 11th reference is just a trade journal reporting on agreements being renewed and only mentions this field in passing.
  - The 10th is just basic statistics probably from a financial report.
  - The ninth reference is dated 1922, and is used as a source for info from 2009-2010. I can't translate it.
  - The eighth reference mentions this gas field in passing as part of a larger important area. But doesn't state it is of any special value.
  - The seventh, is the cia report, It's the only source in this batch that even uses the word 'Important'. But it's not referring to this gas field, but a well in the field. The report is merely summarizing the gas resources in Romania and doesn't single this one out as particularly important.
  - The fifth just talks about drilling somewhere, it was a routine church announcement.
  - The Sixth, doesn't mention this gas field, and is an article that states that gas resources in Romania are now headed toward depletion due to the long period of exploitation.
  - The fourth, lists it as a gas field but has nothing else to say.
  - The third article doesn't mention it.
  - The second article just states what gas compressor it uses.
  - The first reference mentions it in passing once, in a discussion about the first gas pipline.
- There's nothing here to establish this as a stand alone article.

Comment It's probably worth considering that the Romanian language Wikipedia has this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99, but it's about the village in the area the gas field is named for. It also has this article about the larger region containing the gas field https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_Zau_de_C%C3%A2mpie,_Mure%C8%99. Neither of these mention the gas field. There is also this article https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazele_naturale_%C3%AEn_Rom%C3%A2nia on natural gas in Romania. That article mentions several important gas fields in Romania. This one is not on that list. Furthermore, despite the stated importance of those gas fields there are no articles about them to be found on the Romanian Wikipedia. So you can rely on the fact that even Romanians don't care about this one. And, they clearly don't want articles about gas fields. If this is such great gas field, how come nobody on the Romanian Wikipedia thought to write about it? Maybe I should change my vote to "move it to the Romanian Wikipedia"? Since they need an article on this very important gas field. Then we'll see how fast they delete it.James.folsom (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disagree with nomination as the article has a clear claim of importance. Probably any gas field is important, but this one more so since it has been going over 100 years. I will not have comment on notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the provided sources, passes WP:GNG, and i'd say "one of the oldest gas fields in Europe" is a credible claim of significance. Wheather sources are from last week or 200 years old dosen't really matter. Sources don't explicitly have to highlight the subject as being especially "important" to establish notability.
"article contains information about who operates it and what it's annual output are, what compressor it uses, how many wells it currently has. These sorts of details wouldn't be found in article about a notable subject because there would be better things to talk about in the article." Those would be first things to talk about in an article about oil/gas fields?
Wheather articles about the topic exist or dosen't exist in other projects dosen't matter for notability in the English WP. --TheImaCow (talk)
The first red flag was that the article spent more words on a general history of gas production in Romania as a whole and didn't even get to the specific subject until over halfway through the body. The second red flag comes from checking out the sources. It turns out that sources that talk about the "CENTRU region" or the Transylvanian Basin gas production as a whole, and that include this subject as one item in a list at one point in the source, have had all of the other locations stripped out. For examples:
- The Tofan source, supporting the introduction, actually says "Transilvaniei Plain" and this subject is in a list "Zau de Câmpie, Șincai and Delenii" and not specifically singled out.
- The Crețu source, supporting where the article body actually gets around to this subject, talks about the "CENTRU region" and on the page supporting the content this subject is merely one in a list "Nades, Zaul de Campie, Bogata, Saros, Singiorgiu de Campie, Seleus, ZăuŞăulia, Mădăraş, Sărmăşel, Cetatea de Balta, Tauni, Porumbenii Mari, Avramesti, Mugeni, etc." Yes, etc. even!
- The MS News source doesn't even narrow down to this subject in its list. "Păingeni, Saușa, Zau de Câmpie – Saulia și, Săbed" it says. So it's not Zau de Câmpie but Zau de Câmpie–Saulia.
- It turns out that the Romanian government's Annex A (of what document, the source citation doesn't say) says Zau de Câmpie–Saulia too. It's even in the title in the citation. So this article has even narrowed the few sources that seem on-point to a narrower subject. And it's not apparent, since this is Annex A in its own PDF file in the uploads section of a Wordpress site, who the author of Annex A is.
It's not that this is run-of-the-mill. Everything is run-of-the-mill and dull to somebody. It's that the world's knowledge of the entire Transylvanian Basin's gas production has been lopsidedly presented under the subject of just one of the things that most of the sources (in the article, and the ones that I could find after some looking around for geological reports and the like) just include in laundry lists of places where gas wells are, and don't directly discuss in depth as a specific standalone topic. Uncle G (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the run of the mill, thing, thanks for providing another take on why this needs to go away. Much better than my explanation. James.folsom (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article now mentions a PhD thesis from 1929 (by geologist Augustin Vancea [ro], a future corresponding member of the Romanian Academy), which specifically mentions in the title "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie (Moinești)", Moinești being an alternate name for the village, briefly adopted after 1926, but then abandoned. The work is quoted in a 2010 PhD thesis from Babeș-Bolyai University by Liana Spulber, where additional context can be found. Finally, as briefly mentioned in a previous comment of mine, the Zau de Câmpie gas field is specifically mentioned as being important to the Romanian economy, in a full, standalone paragraph from a 1948 CIA report, itself based on an August 15, 1948 article in the official PCR publication, Scînteia (I tried to dig out the original Scînteia piece, but it's behind a paywall). Turgidson (talk) 01:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you need to actually read the policies on significant coverage, because you don't seem to understand that these sources are not significant coverage. James.folsom (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Improvments were made to the article since AFD started. I've reviewed them and have new analysis. The article is no longer about the gas field. In order to expand the article without having significant coverage, the editor has incorporated a bunch material about Romanian gas production and gas production around the world. Only ~half of the sources, and text in this article is actually about the gas field. This makes the article longer, but not better. In checking all the sources, none of them are written about this gas field, many mention it in lists, tables and in passing. But, they are all written about another subject. None of those passing mentions single out this gas field as special. WP:Sigcov/Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance is one of the plainest policies that WP has, and according to that, even this article is no longer significant coverage of the topic. Most every mention of the name of this gas field in this wiki article are passing mentions. I will leave you with examples. Here is an example of a notable gas field, Darvaza_gas_crater. Those who want to see what significant coverage of a gas field looks like may try this: https://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/16766862/perla-gas-field-offshore-venezuela-enters-production. Note that the name of the field is in the title of the source. Now as an exercise try finding the name of this field in the title of anything.James.folsom (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that no source mentions the subject of the article in the title, do you mean that in a literal sense (as in the mathematical concept of Empty set), or in some kind of figurative sense, or perhaps statistical sense? As clearly mentioned in the article (and reiterated in previous comments on this page), there was a whole thesis written by a geologist (later academician), whose title contains the words "with a special description of the natural gas dome from Zaul de Câmpie" (see also GoogleScholar and click on Cite). Turgidson (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I realized I would be amenable to moving this to a title more befitting this article, now that it is rewritten about another topic. Maybe "history of Transylvania natural gas" or some such.James.folsom (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG. Agree with James.folsom eval. Existence does not mean notability. // Timothy :: talk 19:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the article has shifted its topic since the nomination, it would be useful to get more feedback about moving it to a more fitting title, such as "Natural gas in Transylvania".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The information that was added here should have been added to other articles instead of here. The proper thing now might be to merge it to places it belongs, for example Transylvanian_Plateau.James.folsom (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only goal of the keep voters is just to never delete anything, they have no intention of improving the article. I reassert my deletion stance. And, since someone recently got it through my head what primary and secondary sources are, I add that this subject has no secondary sourcing required by WP:GNG.James.folsom (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true - Turgidson did not only !vote keep, but made large improvements to the article. Article before the first PROD and now.

I reassert my "Keep". Also, I don't see how this article has "shifted its topic". Does adding 2 paragraphs about why this field is important really change the topic? It is clearly still about that particular field. --TheImaCow (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "content is king" for me. I don't want to lose reliably sourced content. I'm agnostic as to whether that material is in a standalone article (that meets notability requirements), a list or part of some other article. If anything, Wikipedia needs fewer, longer standalone articles to maintain -- as long as we keep the same content.

Note that reliable sources include primary sources, subject to the 6 requirements laid out in WP:PRIMARY, part of our foundational No Original Research policy. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election#Candidates as a viable ATD. Should he win, history remains for this to be spun back out Star Mississippi 03:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Cid[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor of a small city in Florida (population 30,000). Manny Cid doesn't seem to have gotten in-depth news coverage from any outlets outside the Miami area, there's just some routine coverage of his administration and campaigns from local outlets. I don't see any reason to justify him having a Wikipedia page. It's also worth pointing out that this page was created shortly after Cid announced his candidacy for Miami-Dade County mayor, and that the creator has only ever edited this page, the page for the city where Cid serves as mayor, and the page for the election he's currently running in. Also, a different editor had to come in and remove "peacock terms and unsourced, OR, self-sourced text." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom and WP:TOOSOON. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election or delete and redirect, I don't particularly care which one. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, the secondary sources are WP:ROTM for any local politician, Overall not enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY or significant coverage per WP:POLITICIAN, which notes that candidacy doesn't confer any notability either. Shaws username . talk . 12:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election. Shaws username . talk . 21:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable found. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Mayor Manny Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/. MEAUSA (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of articles on newspapers.com. Why not just merge the article into Miami Lakes, Florida? he has been mayor for eight years so I am pretty sure that there are articles out there on him.Patapsco913 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspaper coverage does not count towards notability, and he is already mentioned in the infobox and government section of Miami Lakes, Florida. I do not believe that a further merge would be suitable for that article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any guideline that local coverage cannot be used to establish notability. I am paraphrasing a fella named Bearcat who pertinently wrote on another AFD: "Notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city or local news coverage rather it rests on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article even if the place they were mayor of was a no-horse village and if it can't be done then a mayor gets deleted." There seems to be enough to write a substantive article here given 15 pages of news articles as well as multiple entries in newspapers.com.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, it's not that local coverage can't establish any notability, just that it's harder. A local paper is expected to write about the local mayor, their plans for the area, what their future political plans are, and so on. Whereas national media (or local from an entirely different area) isn't expected to cover them, as well as their reputability (or not) being fairly well known, and so can be used to quickly establish notability. That said, a lot of the coverage about mayors and electoral candidates is fairly run of the mill and having articles about every single one would become excessive. WP:NPOL gives "multiple news feature articles" as the bar for local figures to meet, so from my understanding the question is if there are multiple feature articles about him from reliable independant sources, excluding those he would have gained from simply being a mayor or candidate. All my results are the generic mayor/candiate stories but that might just be my search so I'm happy to be corrected on that. Shaws username . talk . 03:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake assuming that local coverage couldn't be used to establish notability, but I do agree more with Shaws here. Any mayor or local politician is bound to have plenty of local coverage, so we must be able to find a sufficient amount of sources that aren't WP:ROTM. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage isn't necessarily inadmissible, but it also isn't necessarily enough if it's all that a person has. The thing is that every mayor of everywhere will always have some evidence of coverage in the local media of the town or city where he's mayor, because covering local politics is literally local media's primary reason for being — so if all you needed to do to make a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article was show a few hits of local coverage, then every mayor of everywhere would always be notable enough and there would be no grounds to distinguish a notable mayor from a non-notable mayor at all anymore. So the actual rule is that to be notable enough for Wikipedia, a local politician (mayor, city councillor, etc.) has to demonstrate a credible reason why he or she should be treated as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm — such as their coverage geographically expanding far beyond the purely local, and/or substantive evidence that their leadership had an important and enduring impact on the city — and the article cannot just be "he got elected and then got re-elected again, the end". Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/. He has also been mentioned on several national outlets including here: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2023/09/06/miami-dade-contest-heats-up-00114184. Many cities followed his lead and implemented remote participation. His impact extends far beyond where he is mayor. MEAUSA (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what's significant about being the first mayor in the United States to allow for "remote public comments for residents"? Why is that important? Why is that a thing that people will still be looking for information about in the 2030s? In 2024, of all times, you're trying to claim that using Zoom makes somebody special in and of itself? Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better. As always, mayors aren't all "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence that they can be considered a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for the role — but this is just "personal background and election record", which isn't enough in and of itself. The key to writing a good, keepable article about a mayor is to focus on his actual record in office: specific things he did as mayor, specific projects he spearheaded as mayor, specific effects that his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and other evidence of his political impact, not just his personal life and election record. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Mayor Manny Cid was the first mayor in the United States to allow for remote public comments for residents. Here are several national outlets that wrote on this. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-miami-lakes-town-council-video-conferencing.html https://commonedge.org/conducting-city-government-on-zoom-mayor-manny-cid/. He has also been mentioned on several national outlets including here: https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2023/09/06/miami-dade-contest-heats-up-00114184. Aditionally, Cid is one of the major candidates for Mayor of Miami-Dade County, which is the seventh largest county in the United States. Miami-Dade County has a population of 2.7 million, and being one of the major candiates for this office makes him very notable. MEAUSA (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC) — MEAUSA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't already won, either. Candidates get Wikipedia articles only if they already cleared the notability bar for other reasons anyway. (For example, Hillary Clinton may not have won the presidency, but she previously held other notable offices besides the presidency, and was notable on those grounds regardless of her success or failure in the presidential election.) Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting "mentioned" in a major outlet does not establish notability. That mention in the Politico article is a perfect example of WP:ROTM campaign coverage. Also, those "national outlets" don't exactly seem prominent enough to establish notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, due to the timing, this seems to be political in nature. The day after this article comes out (https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2024/02/12/levine-cava-camp-responds-manny-cid-video/) this Wikipedia page come under attack? Might be a coincidence but the timing just brings up questions. MEAUSA (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not political in nature. Trust me, I have nothing against Manny Cid and I didn't even know who he was before this, and I would bet that all other editors in this discussion would say the same. You can bring up the timing but don't baselessly accuse us of making political attacks. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Funny you bring up politics anyway, as I have several questions I could ask you. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lmfao this is killing me. You really cracked the code here! What is even supposed to be the theory? Oh man, I happened to start this discussion right after Levine Cava criticized her rival! It's totally not like opponents in an election criticize each other very frequently! Could it be that a minor blog happened to publish an article about Levine Cava right before I started this discussion? No, it can't be a coincidence! BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect >>2024 Miami-Dade County mayoral election. Djflem (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe: Assuming people have this page in their watchlists, what do we think of this as a possible WP:ATD? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, it's a good option for people searching for him, I've struck my delete above for it. Shaws username . talk . 21:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd support a redirect. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This BLP exists only for the purpose of promotion and contains negligible content. It should be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: What if we deleted it and then turned it into a redirect? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Xxanthippe: I might be a little stupid but would you mind delineating a bit further? Do you fear that the redirect will be turned back into a promotional BLP? I would think that a redirect would be beneficial to the reader. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

What's your problem? They were just asking. And for the record, they're right, your comment did not explain why a redirect would not be useful. Having a redirect is not promotional, it's just convenient for anyone searching. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my pinging came off as a bit annoying, but bludgeoning? Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with ChocolateMilk here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, not notable under NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 10:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Radamiz. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2409 West Slauson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, contested WP:BLAR.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and United States of America. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete per nom Mach61 (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 redirect to where? There are two artists behind this project, Radamiz and Thelonious Martin. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drat, you're right. Changed. Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radamiz. Per this source he is the primary performer and Thelonious Martin is primarily the producer of the EP. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Radamiz: per Eluchil404. only mentions in current sourcing Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect‎ to Non-binary gender#Xenogender. RL0919 (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xenogenders[edit]

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

This topic does not appear to be notable. A Google News search finds a handful (8 at last count) of non-RS sources and the one LBGTQ Nation source. There does not appear to be any mainstream coverage of the term or topic. Google Books shows only self-published works that reference fandom.com and wikis. The only work on Google Scholar that looks halfway legit is in what appears to be a non-peer-reviewed journal that describes itself as "Journal SA daring and controversial leader in the field of cultural studies, the journal consistently focuses attention on questions of gender, sexuality, race, and the environment, publishing key works by the most influential social and cultural theorists." EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given Evergreen's search, it won't surprise anyone that there's nothing in ngrams as they have already covered Book search. And as Evergreen already did a regular search at Scholar, I decided to look at Scholar in a different way, restricting the search to articles in which xenogender appears in the title as a kind of proxy for WP:SIGCOV, as one would expect that articles that had it in the title would be the most likely ones to have significant coverage of it in the article (you'd still have to test that theory and prove SIGCOV by reading the articles; test search query as a control: cisgender). However, the search results there tend toward the same result we are finding elsewhere, i.e., nothing serious has been written about it yet; hence delete by failure to meet WP:GNG. I see nothing WP:DUE in the article now that deserves merging. If the search results looked more promising, Normally I might consider draftifying, but at this point, I don't see where solid sources are going to come from. Maybe try again with a Draft in a year? Mathglot (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mathglot

SchoolChromebookUser (talk) 13:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I have found a decent source mentioning xenogenders and have cited it in the article (Beattie, Michael; Lenihan, Penny (2018-03-21). Counselling Skills for Working with Gender Diversity and Identity. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 102. ISBN 978-1-78450-481-6). However, considering GNG and such, this topic is probably best covered as a sentence or two within non-binary gender (which it presently is). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 19:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - REDIRECT to Non-binary gender#Xenogender - basically give it the same treatment as Xenogender article (see discussion on Talk:Xenogender) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The current form of the xenogenders article lacks real substance and notability. Xenogenders to my knowledge are a particularly niche subset of non-binary and transgender identities which are already mentioned in the aforementioned articles. After a brief review, the low number of reliable sources and the general lack of notability brings me to the conclusion that this topic currently does not warrant a dedicated article per WP:GNG. The low number of reliable sources contributes to the potential difficulty of building a reliable well-sourced article on the topic at the moment. I believe the optimal course of action as of right now is to merge relevant information into the preexisting section on the non-binary genders article and then either delete xenogenders after draftifying it or turn it into a redirect to non-binary. Perhaps in the future, it could be revisited but as of right now, it is my opinion that it does not meet Wikipedia standards. Thanks. ZombiUwU ^{(💬 ~♥~ 📝)} 18:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the same target of xenogender (Non-binary gender § Xenogender). WP:TOOSOON. --MikutoH ^talk! 01:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as above and per EvergreenFir and Mathglot. It doesn't seem to meet GNG (which, I emphasize, requires significant coverage from quality sources). I'm not sure the sentence on this at non-binary gender is reliably sourced, so I'd be okay with deleting it outright, otherwise just redirect it. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge/redirect, as wide swaths of xenogenders don't fall under the nonbinary umbrella whatsoever. Simply delete. Tdmurlock (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sam Hui#EC Music. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EC Music[edit]

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

Delete No SIGCOV that i could find, reeks of self-promotion. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Hui#EC Music (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I added an anchor to Sam Hui#EC Music and added a source that verifies Sam Hui released the album Life Is Good under the music label EC Music:
- Seto, Kit Yan (2008-01-24). "Life is good for Samuel Hui". The Star. Archived from the original on 2008-01-27. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The article notes: "Last September, Hui released his first album in 17 years, under the EC Music label. “My new album is titled Yan Sang Doh Moh Hou (Life Is Good). I’ll be singing songs from it. We’ve also got a juke-box section where members of the audience will be able to request for songs that they want us to perform.”
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future.
Cunard (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sam Hui#EC Music: per Cunard. it doesn't read that self-promotional but isn't notable enough to be a full article Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zuck Bucks[edit]

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

IP user 2601:642:4600:be10:70cc:2d06:bf9e:b264 tried to nominate this for deletion, reason not given. IP users cannot add to the AfD discussion page, so I am finishing it for them. I'd presume the reasoning is not meeting notability due to not actually existing. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IP’s nomination statement, copied from article talk page:

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, with no follow-up since a burst of rumors in April 2022. Uses of the same phrase for other subjects (a "mock" cryptocurrency or Mark Zuckerberg's political donations) do not address the original subject's defects. Delete. 2601:642:4600:BE10:70CC:2D06:BF9E:B264 (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

--Finngall ^talk 04:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. This is not a thing - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's WP:SPECULATION. If/when they release it might warrant an article, but now is too soon. Shaws username . talk . 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. popodameron ⁠talk 17:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meme garbage which outside of one firewalled FT link, is sourced by 'reportedly', which certainly isn't enough to clinch notability at all. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sourcing is limited to a Financial Times report about an alleged internal and informal name for an idea that a company has, which is nowhere near enough to establish notability; the article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. - Aoidh (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto dialer[edit]

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Article has had lack of citation warnings on it since 2011 yet remains practically unsourced. Only section of article that is sourced relates to telemarketing regulations. Given that there exists a well-sourced article on telemarketing that makes reference to automatic dialing, seek to get agreement to redirect to that article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rambling Rambler: You removed a section which was referenced to "Popular Mechanics" which is massively popular and one of the industry standards for those types of mags. I rememeber reading it, in the 1980's and 1990's. It seems to be a valid secondary source. The subject seems to notable and I think with a bit of work it could be a good article. scope_creep^Talk 18:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they've removed it twice now, and it was one of the things that inspired my objection to the BLAR. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I removed it, as explained in the change notes, because the source was only used to support the following claim:

"A semi-automatic dialer is a human-controlled dialer. All actions, such as dialing, playing the audio messages, recording, are initiated by a human, normally by the press of a key. It is a productivity tool for telemarketing agents. The first semi-automatic dialer was offered on the commercial market in 1942. It was manually operated and came in two models; one that stored 12 numbers and a second which could store up to 52 numbers."
- However if you read the source itself it only actually supports the lines I've put in bold in the above quote. It doesn't support the claim it was the first offered on the market, nor does it support the definition of a "semi-automatic dialer". Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rambling Rambler, that's not good practice. What you could have done is put a cn-tag after the unverified bit, for instance. However, that article is talking about an auto-dialer of the mechanical kind, which isn't what the article is about, allegedly. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies if it was an article that was otherwise citation heavy and showed signs of active improvement I'd probably have done so. Here however it's an article with warnings going back a decade regarding a lack of verifiability, so when a quick google only shows marketing companies wanting to sell you stuff and seem to have just taken their content straight from this article ("In those days, auto dialers were semi-automatic dialers, and they were limited to storing between 12 and 52 numbers. Employees had to press a key to initiate the features") I thought best to go on the side of caution by removing the section given it couldn't support the notable information of the subsection. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wait, Rambling Rambler--so you were trying to improve an underreferenced article by removing the one secondary source it had? Drmies (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Drmies, no, as previously said I was removing a source that was being used to back up claims the source doesn't corroborate. Nowhere does the source state that it's a "semi-automatic dialer" (a term and definition that is uncited itself) nor that, whatever the device in popular mechanics could be defined as, it's the first one on the market.
        
        In fact it's hard to consider the device in question an "automatic dialer" as described by the article lede; that being an electronic device or program that automatically dials a large amount of telephone numbers and either plays a pre-recorded message or connects to a human callhandler.
        
        Instead the device in the popular mechanics source is anything but that. In fact its implementation is really akin to an early version of the contact list on mobile phones, where the phone number is saved against another identifier (usually a name) and selecting that identifier is enough for the phone to dial the specific number associated. Rambling Rambler (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the one who objected to the BLAR. I understand that the article is in terrible shape. But AFD is not cleanup and I'm not seeing any actual argument for deletion besides that. It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable, and not particularly urgent or sensitive that we needed an instant fix. It's not a concept I particularly edit or care about, merely a random move I stumbled upon and didn't agree with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. I agree totally. scope_creep^Talk 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It simply struck me as a lazy solution to a concept that is almost certainly notable"

It wasn't "lazy" at all. I read through the actually cited content in the autodialer article, noted the bottom contained a "see also" for the telemarketing article, and noticed that the article's content is effectively duplicated in that second article. Telemarketing details both the concept of automatic dialing and regulations on its use, both of the leftover thrusts of the auto dialer article after removing the unsourced content. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then replace "lazy" with "not the best approach to the situation". Sergecross73 msg me 18:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not a perfect solution but so far no one else has offered up any others to the situation other than just leaving it with zero applicable citations beyond duplicating content on the article I redirected it too.

And frankly I find it most irritating when you've stated it's "not a concept I particularly edit or care about" and only seem to want to almost insultingly criticise what I did without offering any solutions yourself. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of that comment was simply to show I have no biases for or against auto dialers. I primarily work in music and video games, areas where there are constantly "fanboys/fangirls" trying to protect what they like or erase what they don't. "Swifties", "K-pop Stans", people all caught up in the "console wars", etc etc. I was merely saying I have no bias of that sort. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robocall: and do the same with the the alternate spelling, Autodialer. The Telemarketing article is well written and sourced, but it covers much more than just the topic of the equipment used to generate the telephone calls, a subject that is clearly notable enough for a standalone article such as we have with Robocall and with Dialer. Even redirecting to Dialer would be preferable to redirecting to Telemarketing. Owen× ☎ 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternative redirection I would also be fine with either. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article appears to have been greatly improved since nom. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:04, 10 February 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) 03:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many thanks to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for vastly improving the article (WP:HEY). It now clearly meets our inclusion criteria. Jfire (talk)
Keep -- nice rewrite. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard's rewrite. didn't know that user template existed until now DrowssapSMM 22:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lawrence of Arabia (film). Proposed alternative redirect target does not exist; this could be retargeted if that is created. RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Bentley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jackson Bentley

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

Fails WP:N. I could barely find any outside, reliable sources about the character. The article itself cites no sources JooneBug37 (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JooneBug37 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's widely considered one of the greatest films of all time. I wouldn't be surprised if every character in it has enough scholarly analysis to have a standalone article. Just from a quick search: [24] (search for Bentley), [25], [26]. There's also sourced content in Lawrence of Arabia (film) about the other two actors associated with the role that could be included. Jfire (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename to Fictional characters in Lawrence of Arabia per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Brighton. The sources here are borderline for WP:SIGCOV. But there is enough reliable coverage to write something about how the filmmakers adapted real life people into composite characters. It's a rare niche where there is no real life person to merge these characters to, but there are multiple real life people who inspired these characters, and that is reliable information we should WP:PRESERVE. A list of characters is normal for fiction like this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article does not need work but as Jfire said above there are several sources indicating notability. Otherwise, I would support renaming the page to Fictional characters in Lawrence of Arabia as above. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of sourcing about this character, such as listing sources that one purports to provide significant coverage of him, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This has potential but right now it is just a poorly refenced plot summary. Out of three sources presented above, the first one is just plot summary, second one gives me no access, third one gives me snippets with some suggesting analysis, but WP:SIGCOV is hard ot judge with snippets. So this has potential to be rescued, but unless this is done, I am afraid a soft deletion (redirect) with no prejudice to anyone restoring it and improving it with sources is the best outcome. PS. I'd also be fine with merge to a list as suggested above, particularly if we could rescue something from the deleted article mentioned. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for consensus which is currently split between keep and merge/redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film article. Reviewing the sources given (I have full access to one of the book sources), they are really mostly covering Bentley in the context of recapping the plot of the film, not giving deep analysis of the character. Similar story for other sources I found in my search. Mach61 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is anyone actually stepping forward to make the 'Fictional characters in' article? Wizmut (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Kretzschmar[edit]

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

Not seeing notability under WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Their best known work appears to be in collaboration with the Rolling Stones, but most listed sources do not even mention Kretzchmar, or have brief passing mentions. Others are unreliable. Not seeing in-depth coverage anywhere in reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likewise, I was unable to find any in-depth coverage in WP:LIBRARY, newspapers.com, archive.org, or Google Books or web searches. The long list of external links in the article does not inspire confidence that there is something out there we're missing, because every one of them that I checked is non-RS, non-independent, or non-significant, except for maybe [27], which is just not enough on its own. Jfire (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as here we have one of the major innovators and pioneers in their fields of art and illustration technology. Please read the article, line by line, an article created in early January (we should be thanking its creator instead of pushing an AfD on them). Many album covers, writings, exhibitions, collaborations and other forms of notable and yes, iconic, contributions have been accomplished by Kretzschmar. A couple more cites should be found or formed from the extensive External links, but that's just a matter for the already existing tags and not an AfDeletion attempt for this very notable personage. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that were accurate, wouldn't we be able to find more in-depth coverage of him somewhere? I've read the article line by line and while it certainly describes (often in non-netural terms) an active and working artist, I don't see any evidence of a notable one. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. If even half of what the article says is true then the non-neutral terms are earned and warranted. There are already a few notable sources or External links, so notability shouldn't be a problem as the article further develops (which is one of the biggest benefits of opening an AfD, which makes more editors aware of the topic). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a WP:SOURCESEXIST argment to me. In your view, what are the top three EL sources (or other sources not in the article) that establish notability? Jfire (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am looking for better sources. A lithograph of one of their Rolling Stones album covers is in the Museum of Modern Art[28] permanent collection. Elspea756 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I haven't been able to find sources to show this meets WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. The amount of ridiculous promotion in the article isn't helping. There are unsourced claims like that "Kretzschmar was associated with New York artists Kenny Scharf, Keith Haring, and Jean Michel Basquiat" with no indication what what being "associated with" is even supposed to mean, or who "associated" them, or how being "associated with" a much more successful artist is supposed to somehow rub off on this other artist. There are also for example claims like that they were in the exhibition "Programmed: Rules, Codes, and Choreographies in Art, 1965–2018" at the Whitney Museum of American Art, but the Whitney Museum's website[29] does not list them among the 41 artists in that show, and a google search for the name of the show and this artist's name turns up only this wikipedia article itself. I think this is unfortunately probably a case where graphic designers of even iconic album covers go unrecognized by the news media and book publishers we typically use as sources, and where the amount of over-the-top promotion in the article has possibly buried any useful information. Elspea756 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One RS piece of information about this artist found on WP:BEFORE, the collaborative lithograph of the album cover for the Rolling Stones, Tattoo You. NO reliable sources for biographical information presented. It appears to be gleaned from artist's statements and interviews. I removed the exhaustive and unsourced list of exhibitions. Most of the claims for Collections were either unsourced, failed verification, or had primary sources. Perhaps some information could be merged inth the Peter Corriston led violation of copyright laws to create "Some Girls" cover, but even that should be integrated into Some Girls#Packaging and artwork. Kretzschmar fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asker International School[edit]

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

Clearly no sign of notability. Fails WP: SCH Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Norway. Otuọcha (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Schools should pass WP:GNG/WP:NSCHOOL. WP:SCH is a failed proposal. A WP:BEFORE search has a lot of hits for primary sources. Better sources may exist in Norwegian language. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll add that this nomination for deletion was made 4 minutes after the page was created. Although it would be great if pages were created with enough sources to show notability, I think more time should be given and a discussion opened on the - as yet uncreated - talk page regarding notability per WP:DEMOLISH before rushing to AfD. AfD asks editors to spend a lot more than 4 minutes each in evaluating sources, and sometimes it can be avoided with an in page source discussion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources about the various localities of the school, since it has grown so much during its first ten years Geschichte (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am currently writing and contributing to the article. I believe it would be beneficial to revisit the article after a few days for a thorough review. If it meets the notability criteria, it can be safeguarded from deletion. HimSur9 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont worry, it can be striked since it's based on consensus. Per research, the subject meets no notability. Otuọcha (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current sources are too much of a mishmash, with too many primary sources. Geschichte (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see only primary sources. notability guidelines for organizations won't allow to qualify this page as notable. NiLok223 (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sourcing. Cortador (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the article creator - it seems that you unfortunately have placed too much emphasis on the internal workings of the school, where you should have focused more on the political discussions about the school, if Asker should have such a school and where it should be located. This would have shown political relevance and ramifications. Nobody cares if they have a playground. You have unfortunately found sources via a search engine, which differ wildly both in quality and whether they are even desirable as sources on Wikipedia at all. This article could have been saved, but I don't have the time. Geschichte (talk) 10:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The applicability of BLP1E in this case is questionable, but the consensus is for deletion due to lack of coverage beyond a single event. RL0919 (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heena[edit]

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

Not notable, cites no sources Annwfwn (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Annwfwn (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support searching for 'heena dog' brings up more results for 'henna' and 'hina' and the first non-Wikipedia 'heena' result is a completely different dog. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/virat-darmi-and-heena-awarded-army-chief-commendation/article38283178.ece Traumnovelle (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs improvement, like you know, actual citing, but there is decent coverage from 2005, 2014 and 2018.[30][31][32][33]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trying again, these [34][35] are relevant to this article, doesn't reach GNG IMO. Also had a hit on ProQuest for Heena police dog Ghatkopar, but can only see abstract. Usable non-English sources may exist. The 2018-retired Heena may be notable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The is coverage as the editor above mentioned.The article needs to be improved.WeAreAllHere _talk 11:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@We are all here Whoops, my 2014 and 2018 sources are clearly not about the same dog. Sorry! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article now cites one (1!) source on it (wow!) and actually links the incident which Heena was involved in. However, regardless of how much of a good girl Heena may have been - Heena ultimately falls foul of WP:BLP1E, so, unfortunately, Heena's article may need to go to live in a server farm upstate. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry Heena! WP:BLP1E. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Kum-chol (footballer, born unknown)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the unknown birthdate person has no coverage at all, surprise surprise. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails per WP:V. Svartner (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no coverage. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea. ✗plicit 01:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Il-nam (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and North Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea as WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 76' squads article per above. Not enough individual coverage to warrant an article. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a valid WP:ATD, which is what we have also done for tonnes of non-notable Olympians. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Gwan-il[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not much sources found. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. CSMention269 (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. A single appearance for North Korea in 1988 and nothing about his club career Svartner (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ri Un-il[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no coverage available. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ludwig Ahgren. ✗plicit 00:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Yard (podcast)[edit]

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

I couldn't find any sources that would meet GNG and the streamy nom probably isn't enough on it's own. It's been redirected to Ludwig Ahgren a few times so it's probably good to get consensus on what to do with it at this point. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first Esports Insider is a RS per sourcetool, but it's not about this podcast. I don't find any other mentions of this. I don't think a redirect to the Ludwig person is warranted, the podcast seems to have a few other individuals involved with it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added most of the sourcing after the article had been created, and admittedly there aren't any great secondary sources one could point to. I think podcasts of its size should generally have an article, but the lack of references certainly makes it hard. Regarding what Oaktree b said, the three other hosts are his friends/former roommates and all work for Ludwigs production company and unlikely to ever get their own articles, so a redirect and section in his article should be fine in that regard (at least better than nothing at all). Coverage of influencers has improved over the years, but their side-projects are still lacking, even if they are the same size as something like Chapo. --jonas (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirct to Ludwig Ahgren. When looking for sources I'm not finding much more than social media. Whenever I see a list of guests like the one currently in the article I normally blank it and the show does not WP:INHERIT notability fron its guests. Also, YouTube is not a reliable source and that currently makes up the majority of the cited sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube sources are links to episodes where the guests have appeared. Arnar with rn (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ludwig Ahgren. per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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