< February 19	February 21 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dhankundi. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhankundi Shahnaj Siraj High School[edit]

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:NSCHOOL only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhankundi, the settlement where the school is located. That's what Rupples, who declined the PROD, suggested, and it's a good alternative to deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhankundi. Obviously has importance to the community it serves. Other than its verified existence haven't found any significant coverage, so notability criteria not met for a separate article. Rupples (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dhankundi Macbeejack ☎ 14:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. There's nothing to merge that is especially well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 26 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 00:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current MPBL North Division team rosters[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as this is not discussed as a group within secondary sources. Readers are much better off finding automatically updated team rosters on the league/team websites.

I'm also nominating the following pages per WP:BUNDLE under similar circumstances:

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

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

Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Sports, Basketball, and Philippines. Let'srun (talk) 16:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the team rosters can be displayed on the team's individual pages e.g. Bataan Risers, but don't need to be collated together in these articles by division. Lists like this of almost all non-notable people clearly fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above Traumnovelle (talk) 23:54, 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!} 22:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain[edit]

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

~~Media hasn't covered Abul Hasnat Zulqarnain directly and in-depth, so this fails WP:GNG. Also, he is a judge of a local court so fails WP:NJUDGE. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The judge has received significant coverage as he was judge in a major case against former prime minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan sentencing him to ten years in prison. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share at least two in-depth references about him here. I couldn't find such references. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sentencing a head of state is often a significant event covered by reliable sources. Therefore, judges involved in such cases can meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. His action of sentencing Imran Khan attracted significant attention and coverage in reliable sources. This judgement of his is of historical and legal significance. That is good enough reason in my opinion of him warranting an article.

One such example could be of Judge Richard Goldstone, who served as a judge in South Africa and later chaired the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict in 2008-2009. His role in this high-profile investigation made him notable on Wikipedia.

If that is not an appropriate example, then another example of a judge who became notable because of presiding a case is Thokozile Masipa who was presiding judge in Oscar Pistorius trial.

As for more recent example, the civil judge Arthur Engoron who is hearing case against Donald Trump, already have an article since November 2023. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:25, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NJUDGE as he is a district court judge. WP:SIGCOV has not been shown, only passing mentions in the press. Broc (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great fan of basing an article on news sources myself, but I seem to be in a small minority at Wikipedia. A click on the word "news" in the nomination reveals plenty of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, certainly more than passing mentions and many articles focussing on the judge himself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin AFD emerged from the actions of a blocked editor who misused multiple accounts and was not committed to enhancing the encyclopedia but rather had a distinct political motive. This editor engaged in numerous conflicts with me, leading them to target my contributions in any manner possible. This AFD was a result of their battleground behavior. I believe this AFD should be closed without any action due to it being created by a blocked editor. If we left their actions in good standing, it will incentivize the pattern of creating new accounts at will and causing disruption on Wikipedia, only to face a minor consequence of a straightforward account block. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I totally agree with the above arguments presented by Sheriff | ☎ 911 and Phil Bridger. I am also tired of seeing all these fairly good articles getting deleted on this forum. Articles that already have some good sources, like this one, should be tagged and improved rather than outright deleted...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:44, 26 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!} 22:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Jenny's Day[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to PR and unreliable sources. I was not able to find coverage that would establish that this is a WP:DUE addition at say, World Mental Health Day, which the subject coincides with. There's a mention at Karen Darke supported by this PR piece which should probably be removed if that's the only source that can be found to support it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Psychology, and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might be an article about Jenny herself, which has a small amount of coverage. But nothing for this (I don't want to call it a holiday), day of remembrance? World Mental Health Day is notable, I'm not sure this particular day of remembrance really caught on with the public. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed like the coverage of the suicide was a bit more tabloid-y than what would generally justify such an article, but I do agree that we are closer to identifying coverage for Suicide of Jenetta Barry than we are to the actual subject of this article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge contents to World Mental Health Day. Doesn't really need a standalone page. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think establish that coverage about Jenny's Day would be WP:DUE for inclusion there? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Given the direct attention and endorsement from the British Prime Minister and its specific focus on teen suicide (which sets it apart from the broad strokes of World Mental Health Day), an issue of significant societal concern, "World Jenny's Day" warrants retention. Teenage suicide is often lumped into other nebulous categories, and objectively, this has already commanded significant celebrity and broad-based appeal interest.

Now added is the fact that this is a fully registered charity. _signed,Ssteedman ^talk 21:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no good sources on which to base an article - as the nominator says they all seem to be based on PR. In general there are far too many of these awareness days. There are far more than 365 worthy causes, so every day (except possibly 29 February) is an awareness day for several things. The fact this this is not notable in Wikipedia terms doesn't subtract from its importance. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. Not every registered charity is notable, and many of them as run of the mill. Importance isn't the same as notability. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 26 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 00:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sher Shah Interchange[edit]

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

Notability not established with significant sources, apparently a pretty generic piece of highway infrastructure Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see previous AfD discussion (bundled, no consensus after minimal participation). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just a basic flyover MNewnham (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief pastors of the Pentecostal Mission[edit]

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

A list of people, none of whom have their own articles, that's been unsourced since its creation in 2006 except for someone adding the name of a church to the reference section. I'm thinking this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Religion, Christianity, Lists, and Sri Lanka. Shaws username . talk . 23:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sourcing. Seems to be established in Sri Lanka. Most faiths vary by geographical locations, and likewise adapt their practices and hierarchy accordingly. This is the first time I've seen the (assumed) Pentecostal structure of "Chief Pastors" and "Deputy Chief Pastors". — Maile (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and explanation per User:Maile66. MNewnham (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with the nominator's explanation. Dan arndt (talk) 08:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination --Konstantina07 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, as said above, none of these people are notable. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per W:SNOW, WP:LIST, and WP:MILL. I think the consensus is to delete, and based on that along, is fine. I note, in addition, that a list of things or people has to be one of notable things or people. This is a small minority religion that hasn't attracted any ethnographic or religious studies. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 26 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 00:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masoom (2017 TV series)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, does not appear to have ever made it to release, and the only available coverage are unreliable database entries and PR of its production circa 2017. Searching for coverage online, I only found reviews of an unrelated show by the same name. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 13 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) 23:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 105.103.152.170 (talk) 20:37, 24 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 Nifty Gateway. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Soleymani[edit]

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

Not notable. Cannot find any reliable non-primary sources about him. Aintabli (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Iran, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom. Aintabli (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nifty Gateway: All of the coverage about him outside of press releases and interviews is about his lawsuit against Nifty Gateway which can be covered in that article. S0091 (talk) 14:54, 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!} 23:39, 13 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, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just delete, I think.~~ Merge (see below) I'm not sure if it's due or undue to put reference to this into Nifty Gateway, but I don't really see any reason to merge this content in particular. -- asilvering (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering the reason I think a merge might be appropriate is because the case itself is significant according to The Telegraph (footnote 5): "In a case with huge repercussions for the UK consumer,...". and "The case is of such significance that the UK’s Competition and Market Authority is backing Mr Soleymani’s legal claim." S0091 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 hm ok, I buy that. -- asilvering (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering thanks for your consideration. Of course had you not been convinced, ok as well. S0091 (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to merge as nom per the discussion above. Aintabli (talk) 19:13, 27 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 00:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center – Southwest Asia[edit]

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

No independent coverage - it's all just military websites/publications. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 22:47, 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) 22:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, Middle East, Kuwait, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 14 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) 23:28, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyPhoneExplorer[edit]

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

Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV. popodameron ⁠talk 22:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Software, and Austria. popodameron ⁠talk 22:20, 13 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) 23:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to have any significant coverage. Just websites that relist downloads. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 23:50, 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. If an editor wants to work on an article on this subject, I'll be happy to restore to Draft space or you can request this at WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Lyon (footballer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to brief mentions in match writeups and non-independent reporting by his club. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this decent article, [1], other bits like [2], the cites on the article already, more around in google is enough for me for basic WP:GNG thanks. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dougal18's evaluation of these sources below (although the Sun citation is really just a mere mention even before we consider the paper's reliability). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Herald contains a couple of sentences and his boss waffling on about Lyon. The Sun is depreciated, the cites on the article are either non independent (PTFC) or mentions in match reports (BBC). He fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lyon has literally today moved on loan to a new club, I have already added new sources covering this and will continue to update the page and add content and sources when necessary. This move will only provide the page with more detail. Partickthistle123 (talk)

Comment Where is the SIGCOV? Read CRYSTAL. Dougal18 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't understand the persecution of Scottish football league players at times. They get similar coverage to English players. I still don't get why people don't like general coverage. Govvy (talk) 14:40, 14 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. Herald source is OKish, Sun is absolutely not. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, maybe TOOSOON, but he's playing pro football and already has some coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:48, 19 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) 23:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:53, 25 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!} 05:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beaulieu College[edit]

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

No indication of any notability given, none found with a google - appears to just be just another run-of-the-mill school. KylieTastic (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. KylieTastic (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. I was unable to find any information online about this college. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 01:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 13 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!} 23:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostics of Karma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability added since the first nomination for this pseudoscientific nonsense. In the previous keepers' nom says "There are many independent and authoritative sources"; well I found no WP:RS that fit enwiki requirements. - Altenmann >talk 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, Spirituality, Science, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources and links are primary and I don't see any way this passes WP:BOOKCRIT nor WP:GNG. I cannot locate any appropriate sources. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:04, 14 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Featuring a book on tee vee, or a book tour, are not evidence per se of notability. This article by itself doesn't fit into any regular category, and would have to be extensively edited to make sense. 19:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creepers series[edit]

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

Non-notable book series for seven chapbooks. I have looked for reviews on Kirkus Reviews, Booklist, and Publishers Weekly, as well as a general Google and Google Scholar search. I found the chapbooks on ISFDB, but it did not list any reviews or awards for any of the books. I would generally WP:BLAR, but the series has two authors, so it doesn't make sense to redirect to one author and not the other. Further, the page previously highlighted a Creepers book series by Edgar J. Hyde. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Australia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail at this moment in time the guideline Wikipedia:Notability_(books). Many of the possible references seen in a Google search appear to be the result of circular referencing to this article (WP:CIRCULAR) and the article therefore is serving as promotion. Republish when it passes WP:BK. 5Q5|^✉ 14:26, 24 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!} 05:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Solidaire[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Cited sources are PR or otherwise non-independent. Searching online, I was able to find some brief coverage in Le Figaro ([3]), but on its own that does not get us to WP:NCORP. The creation of this article alongside articles on simple.wiki and es.wiki, but not fr.wiki, is unusual and suggestive of possible cross-wiki spam. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, and France. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi guys. As usual, I have created this article because I think it is notable (almost 10 sources including Le Figaro as mentioned above). But as always, we decide all together. --BobVillars (talk) 00:07, 18 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) 22:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, review of sources in Le Figaro is too brief to meet WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the "10 sources" again,
Aerobernie, basically an ad, section headings include Pourquoi choisir Jet Solidaire ? (why choose Jet Solidaire?), Un service d’excellence (a service of excellence), Des critères de sélection draconiens pour une sécurité optimale (Draconian quality control for optimal security), etc. This is not independent coverage, and they advertise services to "enhance your online presence and engage your audience" (nos services peuvent vous aider à valoriser votre présence en ligne et à engager votre audience de manière significative. on their about page.

A-Speakers FR, a bio for the company's CEO on a database. Does not appear independent, not secondary.

l"internaute, interview with the CEO with no further analysis or commentary from the publication itself, not independent.

JH-Coach, a blog run by a self-help coach, not reliable

Aerocontact, database listing, not secondary coverage, likely not independent

ASF-FR, press release from an organization announcing its partnership with Jet Solidaire, not independent

Entrepreneurs d'Avenir, unbylined press release, which notes at the bottom lien URL https://www.jetsolidaire.com. Not independent

That's actually the end of the reference list; I guess BobVillars may be counting the company website in the external links section, as well as the Figaro article that I found. The Figaro article is an okay source; the only okay source for this topic, which means we fall short of WP:ORGCRITE by a handy margin. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Figaro article is 7 years old and they've had nothing as good since MNewnham (talk) 01:32, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Averin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. There's some brief mentions in Russian-language writeups of local youth chess tournaments, but no significant biographic coverage. The strongest source I could find was this. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Games, and Russia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:02, 13 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) 22:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any SIGCOV. It's also a BLP that is entirely negative, consisting only of a couple of trivial incidents of supposed bad sportsmanship. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't thought about the coverage of the chess matches being negative, but you're right. With that in mind, it's worth noting that the subject is not only a living person, but also a child. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:12, 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 Guyana women's international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Banfield[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) No evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:34, 23 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 SMS (hydrology software). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMS (hydrology software)[edit]

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

I do not believe that this article meets the criteria in WP:PRODUCT to have its own page. The mentions in secondary sources are rather brief. The Salt Lake Tribune did mention WMS significantly in the article cited, however the heading at the top mentions that the information may be out of date and is for personal research only. Additionally, it seems like this is part of a product line in addition to SMS (hydrology software), which is also a rather short article. However, I am not a hydrology expert, so those who know more about the topic may have further insights on its notability. Sagflaps (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Software, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SMS (hydrology software) per OP's argument. All the three Aquaveo products appear to be borderline on WP:NSOFTWARE (not a formal guideline, though). — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SMS (hydrology software) as it makes sense and is more reader-friendly to discuss them together. Star Mississippi 14:22, 23 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 Guyana women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Edwards[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2010, 2011, 2012, etc.) No evidence of notability. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Canada, Caribbean, and South America. JTtheOG (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:35, 23 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Troche[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this college football coach to meet WP:GNG. The strongest sources are this interview and some blurbs about his hiring (1, 2). I would support draftification as an ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Florida. JTtheOG (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a move draft if significant coverage can't be found as it is likely that more coverage will be made later. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Open to making this a draft so interested editors can work on it further. Let'srun (talk) 23:19, 25 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) 22:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sasquatched! The Musical[edit]

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

All of the sources and external links are connected to the subject. Not clear the topic passes WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. 4meter4 (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO I can only find various sites to buy the play, or license a performance, or primary sourcing. This is all I could find otherwise [4] Oaktree b (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Musical by non-notable playwright, produced only at a festival and by non-notable theatre companies. Then, of course, there is no interest from independent sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:25, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur Cricket Association[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Was PROD deleted then restored via WP:RFU. Single reference added, not enough to fulfill the notability requirements. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and Malaysia. UtherSRG (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Typically, only regional cricket associations in ICC full member states are deemed notable. Malaysia being an Associate Member doesn't reach this threshold. That aside, coverage is WP:ROUTINE. AA (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Malaysia is a ICC member and cricket association such as the Kuala Lumpur Cricket Association has been around for many year since colonial rule and is a organisation that is promoting and helping kids through charity work in regards to cricket. It has many news articles, valid websites and social account and should remain on Wikipedia. Jana1989sl (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not an ICC full member and as such, a cricket association which would have a first-class domestic team that it runs. Sadly, it isn't notable in cricketing terms. AA (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. While there is some coverage, it's not enough for a GNG pass and there is no suitable redirect here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my previous rationale on the PROD nomination. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:49, 22 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!} 23:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Cook[edit]

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

Article does not meet guidelines for verifiability and no original research. Subject does not meet guidelines for notability. Bennychloroplast (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A review of existing sources for the article revealed nearly all of them do not support claims made in the article or are written by the subject of the article. A thorough search for new sources turned up no sources referencing the subject of the article, save this article. Bennychloroplast (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's a self-promotional piece with bogus referencing. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above

David L. Cook discography also should be deleted. — Maile (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a whole group of articles: David L. Cook discography, List of awards and nominations received by David L. Cook, The Cook Family Singers, and Artists Music Guild that all warrant deletion on the same grounds. Bennychloroplast (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a lot of self-referencing here, but I think that he probably passes WP:ANYBIO#1 on account of several awards. These include an induction into the Country Gospel Music Hall of Fame, a 2012 Artists Music Guild Comedian of the Year award, among others. He has a number of Emmy awards that he's won (though most appear to be regional Emmys), but the quality of the article is simply not up to standards at the moment. I'm weakly opposed to deletion—I don't think this is TNT-level—but I do have some concerns about draftification given how old the article is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like WP:ANYBIO is met here. should be tagged with proper tags instead. making it into a draft can also be explored. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 4,5,6 are the only non-primary ones (and are RS per source tool). 4 doesn't link to an article about him, 5 and 6 are a list of several nominations, serving only as a name drop. The rest are primary... All sourcing I can find is to download or listen to his music. Nothing at all about this individual. I doubt this is a hoax, but there is no substantial coverage we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rota (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Kadı Message 18:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to pass WP:NSINGER. Aintabli (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. Sourcing used in the article is about the person being or not being detained by police (Gtranslate is wonky), which doesn't seem to meet criminal notiability. Short articles regardless and I can't find anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: -Lionel Cristiano^? 00:25, 22 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City Center-Raipur[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't find sources to establish that it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. The sources are not verifiable though the location exists. There is no reliable or independent source on the page to warrants its own article. RangersRus (talk) 15:41, 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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li'l Missy Beaded Dolls[edit]

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

Low notability, unable to find any reliable sources. detria^skies 17:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a cut-paste of a product list MNewnham (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Products. detria^skies 17:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur that what we have is not good enough for mainspace; fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTCATALOGUE.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:50, 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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live XXX TV[edit]

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

This was the only source I found [5]. I'm not sure if it's worth AtD by redirecting to Digital Spy. Ben Azura (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We wouldn't redirect it to an industry source merely describing its existence that has no relation otherwise to them; otherwise it's yet another non-notable Sky adult channel lessee, and this is about one of the most embarrassing and poorly-written channel descriptions (undoubtedly one-handed) I've ever read. Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Ben and Nate. I couldn't dig up any SIGCOV either. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:25, 24 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!} 22:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FXGT[edit]

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

There's no indication that this meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The company won "Best Hybrid Broker 2022 at the Ultimate Fintech Awards", and "Best Broker Award 2023 by AtoZ Markets", awards of unclear notability from what I can find about them online. Sources cited for the company are press releases, an interview, reviews on sites of unknown reliability, and routine inclusions in listings. There's plenty more of that online, but no significant coverage that I can find in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Companies. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Asia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing used is press releases or primary things... Non-notable awards won. What I find is PR about a new website, then into the crypto promo sites... Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed, does not appear to be notable. Sargdub (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article creator moved this article to Foreign Trading Gross Experience, and nominated it for speedy deletion db-author. I've reverted the move, and declined the speedy deletion nomination, as it's ineligible by WP:CSD#G7. Wikishovel (talk) 10:37, 25 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) 16:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solarball[edit]

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

Non-notable invention that got some churnalism coverage when it was created, but there are no further sources (WP:LASTING) indicating significance or that this ever went beyond a prototype. Reywas92^Talk 15:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like every 5 years one of these water purification devices is the next big thing but sadly.... MNewnham (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Products, Environment, and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searches via WikiLibrary and Newsbank databases failed to find any reliable sources. Given the product was launched over 10 years ago, if it was going to garner notability, we should have seen it by now. Fails WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 21:36, 22 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 00:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code of non-infringement[edit]

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

It does not seem to be a real thing, I could not find any mention of this code. I would opt for a redirect to Intellectual rights to magic methods, but if this is a hoax, it should be deleted. Broc (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Law. Broc (talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources that I can find on this are principally related to the Clown Egg Register, and describe this rule as "unwritten". We really cannot have an article about a rule that isn't formally recorded in an encyclopaedia whose content is supposed to be verifiable. There are plenty of sources about the Clown Egg Register, in contrast. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm keen to see other opinions, but this was a fun one to check. There's a mention about the code in the context of McDonald's in a book "by Wikipedians" and it's been discussed "according to Wikipedia" by a law firm. Another law firm also talks about it, but the article postdates our entry. A possible WP:ATD is a merge with Intellectual rights to magic methods, incorporating also the Clown Egg Register (relevant article). The article creator is still semi-active on Wikipedia, so I do hope Pedant can jump in. I'm not raising my hopes that this is, by some distance, the longest hoax (though if it is, the content would be fitting). IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I found something interesting in this scholarly article [6], where the code is defined as the Antiappropriation norm (page 1333) and in this glossary: [7] where it's referred to as "Code of the Clowns". So I wouldn't get my hopes up for the longest hoax. However, the fact it does not have a unique denomination and is only loosely defined makes me wonder if such "code" deserves its Wikipedia page (and if the current title is correct). Broc (talk) 08:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm getting a few gsearch results for "anti-appropriation norm", but only ever applied to stand-up comedy rather than clowns. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is one problem with unwritten rules: we don't even have names for them. Uncle G (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything about this code. The clown egg registry was interesting however... Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find RSes tusing the phrase "code of non-infringement" with regard to clowns. The Clown International Egg Registry ([8]) appears to be notable and might be something I decide to work on. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others and my prior comment. If this exists at all, we don't have sufficient sources to support it. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 22:36, 26 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Meltzer[edit]

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

Lots of assertions that he is significant as an academic and planner, but no evidence he meets threshold. Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does seem to have been a notable academic and planner. Full length obituary in the Chicago Tribune: [9]. The University of Texas at Dallas issues their own obituary: [10]. (It's not independent, but WP:NACADEMIC does not require independent sources.) Often mentioned or discussed in scholarship about urban planning in Chicago, e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14]. His book Metropolis to Metroplex received several scholarly reviews: [15], [16], [17]. He and his firm are discussed extensively in this doctoral dissertation: [18]. Jfire (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a person of significance and finding references from 1950s-1960s is probably not easy given that those were pre-digital media times. BulgarianCat (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Subject is clearly notable per sources already in the article in addition to Explicit's argument. The real problem is that great swaths of the article are copyvio from the cited Hyde Park Journal obit. Central and Adams (talk) 17:39, 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 no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mindanao Gazette[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Although there are passing mentions in those sources, it's not an indication of the subject's notability. Israel's Son 11:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Philippines. Israel's Son 11:08, 6 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 13:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 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. ✗plicit 14:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Def Dames Dope[edit]

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Belgium. Shaws username . talk . 15:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 15:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why this article would not have sufficient notability? It has an article in Dutch https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Def_Dames_Dope

And if I search on Google I get plenty of results. This group is quite notable within the Eurodance scene. Thanks for clarification. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page has zero references, and the only thing that links to it is a redirect and a list of top-30 Number 1 singles. This doesn't suggest notability to me. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then add ((Unreferenced)) Shadow311 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and easily meets WP:BAND#2 - many record releases in a national chart. This include topping the chart - per the list here. ResonantDis_tortion 09:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of WP:BAND #2. It took the nominator 2 minutes from their previous edit to set this AfD in motion. The following text: The page has zero references [...] This doesn't suggest notability to me appears to show disrespect for the golden WP:NEXIST rule and strengthens the impression that no serious WP:BEFORE was performed. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 24 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 14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby County Republican Party (Alabama)[edit]

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

A county-level branch of a political party with no specific claim to notability seperate from the larger party organisation. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Much of the article consists of lists of very minor elected officials, such as members of a probate office. AusLondonder (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Alabama. AusLondonder (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN political party organization of not an especially big county in Alabama. This verges on spam. 19:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2023[edit]

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

Created today. A collection of armed attacks against Israelis in Israel. Article misuses the label "terrorist", which goes against MOS:TERRORIST. A number of incidents on the list have not been labelled as terrorism by the linked sources, so we have a fundamental OR/SYNTH problem. The list also indiscriminately includes incidents that are arguably not classified as terrorism (e.g., armed attacks against Israeli military installations or personnel). Finally, it can be argued that the list criteria violate WP:NPOV, since the article only considers attacks against Israelis but not against other nationalities. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which incidents are the ones which you refer to as being "armed attacks against Israeli military installations or personnel"? WikiJunkie (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E.g., January 25. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. January 25 was at a military post, even though it was near a civilian settlement. I removed that instance from the article. WikiJunkie (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps civilians were used as human shields. Good you've removed that incident. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to be well-sourced, could perhaps use a rewrite or new title to ensure NPOV, ok otherwise methinks. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a translation of an article from the Hebrew Wikipedia that is also titled that there. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We also have many other articles with a similar title. Is it being suggested that we'll also remove the articles List of terrorist incidents in France, Terrorist incidents in Iraq in 2020 and List of terrorist incidents in India for the same reasons? WikiJunkie (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have "terrorist incidents against the French in France", "against the Hindus in India", etc.

Why did you decide not to include terrorism against other nationalities (e.g., the Palestinians) in Israel? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the scope of this article and any articles of this type should encompass all instances of terrorism against innocent civilian populations within Israel and the Israeli settlements (we could have a separate set of similar articles for the areas under the control of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority), including acts of Jewish extremist terrorism within Israel and the Israeli settlements. While the current wording was chosen to ensure coverage of the attacks against Israeli civilians in the West Bank, I am open to exploring alternative titles. WikiJunkie (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to emphasize that, in my understanding, the term "Israeli" in this context is intended to encompass all citizens of Israel, including all Arab citizens of Israel (some of whom identify as Palestinians) that represent 21% of Israel's population. (I understand now that some of the people in this discussion might have mistakenly thought that this population is not included in the scope of the article). WikiJunkie (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you name the article as "List of terrorist incidents in Israel" and faithfully reflect the sources in the use of the terrorism label? That would be more of a NPOV approach, as the article scope would include also far-right terrorism, Jewish religious extremism, terrorist acts perpetrated by Israeli settlers, and so on (although the issue of MOS:TERRORIST would still remain). — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Amply sourced article. If there are MOS concerns, they can be dealt with. We don't tackle MOS concerns by deleting articles. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete the sourcing arguments would be valid if any of the sources actually dealt with a subject like "List of terrorist incidents against Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2023". They are, however, just news reports about individual terrorist attacks and so this list fails WP:NLIST. AryKun (talk) 13:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole idea (and praxis!) of the list is racist: why incidents only against “Israelis”, and not against other sorts of people? Either you make a list of attacks against [any sort of] people, or you don’t make a list at all. Such a ‘general’ list however is very much work, which no one will volunteer to undertake – also because it is ‘trivial’ and therefore hardly interesting (in encyclopedic sense): we all know, a sort of (civil) war is going on, there, and in a war, violent attacks are normal – unfortunately. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AryKun. Does not pass NLIST, which requires that the grouping itself be notable. This has not been shown per the sources used in the article. popodameron ⁠talk 18:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and AryKun and Corriebertus. Jebiguess (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AryKun and Corriebertus. Article is also currently a MOS:TERRORIST minefield, as many of the sources do not appear to directly describe these incidents as terrorism or the perpetrators as terrorists. The edits required to fix this issue would leave an arbitrary list of attacks against Israelis, worsening the WP:NLIST issues.

Article has since been edited to remove "terrorist" titles which, as mentioned, further worsens the WP:NLIST issues. The article is now a WP:NPOV disaster. It only appears to mention violent attacks committed, or allegedly committed, by Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and foreigners from a limited number of countries. The article contains no explanation for this distinction. Ertal72 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - widely sourced. There are problems to fix, but try to WP:PRESERVE content instead of deleting. –BanyanClimber(talk) 23:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 14:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRESERVE requires the content to meet the three core content policies, however the discussion here is that two out of these three policies are likely not met and so PRESERVE is not applicable. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am persuaded by the points made citing MOS:TERRORIST and WP:NLIST, articulated by kashmīrī and AryKun. I tend to be sympathetic to WP:PRESERVE, but here there are policy issues with the premises (terrorist framing and a focus on a single nationality in a geographic area rather than the geographic area in general). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AryKun and Corriebertus. This violates WP:NPOV and is not an encyclopedia or a notable list. Also delete List of violent attacks against Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2022 and List of violent attacks against Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories in 2024.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This original research list has so many problems, starting with the obtuse title, the incidents which aren't even described as terrorism in their sources and the serious NPOV issue that it's not worth saving. AusLondonder (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inherently violates MOS:TERRORIST. starship .paint (RUN) 06:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on the feedback on this page so far I decided to do several changes to the content of the article: (1) I have changed the name of the article to "List of terrorist incidents in Israel in 2023" (2) I have changed the lead so that it is made clear that the scope of the article should encompass the most prominent terrorist incidents against innocent civilian populations within Israel and the Israeli settlements during 2023 including both far-right terrorism, Jewish extremist terrorism and Palestinian political violence. including acts of Jewish extremist terrorism within Israel and the Israeli settlements (3) I have started the article List of terrorist incidents in the Palestinian territories which is linked in the lead of this article and would focus on the most prominent terrorist incidents carried out by Jewish extremists and settlers against innocent civilian populations within the Palestinian territories. WikiJunkie (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I plan on further improving and expanding these articles in the following days (also based on the additional feedback from the page), in order for these articles to be as comprehensive, accurate and balanced as possible I plan to also invite editors from the Palestine and Israel Wikiprojects to participate in a collaborative effort aimed at elevating the quality of these articles as much as possible. WikiJunkie (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list still has most of the problems outlined in OP. And as AryKun explains, the sourcing is just news reports about individual terrorist attacks and so this list fails WP:NLIST. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:17, 27 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 14:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayaz Sheikh[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Pakistani playback singer, no RS, handout press information repeated in most of the sources here, look out for "Ayaz father’s name is muhammad abid sheikh and grandfather’s abdul khaliq sheikh. Ayaz started a career in radio pakistan hyderabad as an voice acting child artist in 2004." Oh! The very content in this WP page. Submission declined twice, ignored by the author and here we are. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pakistan. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also appears to have deleted the AfD notice from the article, not off to a good start... Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted their edit that removed the AfD notice. Please do not remove this notice from the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe that Ayaz Sheikh meets the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. He has a significant presence in the Pakistani music industry, with multiple reliable sources verifying his career and contributions. His collaborations with notable artists, appearances on television shows, and educational background in mass communication further support his notability. Therefore, I suggest keeping this article on Wikipedia. Syed Shaveer (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get six hits in Gnews, no matter what variations of singer/voice actor I try, none of which are about this individual. What's used now for sourcing appears to be PR items. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as it is supported by multiple reliable sources and provides significant information about the introduction career. Additionally, the deletion discussion appears to be based on misunderstandings or disputes rather than genuine concerns about the article's quality or compliance with Wikipedia policies. Syed Shaveer (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am struggling to find any form of notability here, let alone sourcing, besides the individual's YouTube channel. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interview with Ayaz Sheikh, who is associated with Pakistan's Jung Group, has been featured in The News International Magazine. Syed Shaveer (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to the article. I want to assure you that there are 12 news articles, including one from The News International magazine, and an additional link to Ayaz Sheikh's interview on Bol Network's YouTube channel. Additionally, there are 5 external links providing further information about Ayaz Sheikh. I will continue searching for more reliable sources to enhance the article's comprehensiveness. Your feedback is valued, and I am committed to ensuring the article meets Wikipedia's standards. Syed Shaveer (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 41.99.221.13 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per the discussion, I recommend keeping the article on Ayaz Sheikh on Wikipedia. He meets the notability criteria with significant contributions to the Pakistani music industry, collaborations with notable artists, appearances on television shows, and a background in mass communication. The sources provided, including news press release articles and interviews, support his notability. Syed Shaveer (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. Syed Shaveer, which three of the current references do you believe do most to establish that he's notable? Note that press releases and interviews don't help with that. Maproom (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the provided references, here is a concise reply:

---

Thank you for your inquiry. After reviewing the references provided, the three sources that contribute significantly to establishing Ayaz Sheikh's notability are:

1. [TheNews Epaper](https://e.thenews.com.pk/karachi/02-05-2023/you-page3): Offers insights into Ayaz Sheikh's career and professional journey.

2. [City News Pakistan](https://citynews.com.pk/ayaz-sheikh-a-multi-talented-sensation-making-waves-in-the-pakistani-music-scene/19648/): Provides detailed coverage of Ayaz Sheikh's career, highlighting his impact on the Pakistani music scene.

3. [Digital News Pakistan](http://digitalnewspakistan.com.pk/ayaz-sheikh-pakistan-rising-singer/): Discusses Ayaz Sheikh's rising popularity and recognition in the music industry.

These sources shed light on Ayaz Sheikh's significant contributions to the music industry, supporting his notability. Syed Shaveer (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you used ChatGPT to answer the question, instead of combing through the references yourself, really says something. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sungodtemple,Thank you for your message. I want to explain that sometimes I use ChatGPT to quickly answer questions, especially when I have trouble with language or grammar. But if you prefer, I won't use it anymore. Many people around the world use similar AI tools to help them communicate better. Syed Shaveer (talk) 17:36, 25 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 00:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venture Bros.: The Music of JG Thirlwell[edit]

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

Unable to verify this meets WP:NALBUM. I could only find one review and it seems to only be noteworthy in the context of being the soundtrack to a popular show. Sources listed are primary or just a listing. I think a redirect to The_Venture_Bros.#Soundtrack_CD would be appropriate. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 6 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 10:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of significant coverage of this release:
"JG Thirlwell Explains How He Brings Villains and Comedy to Life in the Music of 'The Venture Bros'"

"Meet JG Thirlwell, the Musical Genius Behind ‘Venture Bros.’"

"Sounds Heard: The Venture Bros.—The Music of JG Thirlwell"

"The Venture Brothers: The Music of JG Thirlwell (2009)"

Two interviews about the music and two reviews of the set is enough to pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:58, 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. ✗plicit 14:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larkrise Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school without any credible claim to meeting notability requirements at WP:NORG; namely "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. AusLondonder (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the independant coverage I could find was either WP:ROTM or not significant about the school, not enough to help it meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL Shaws username . talk . 12:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Likely delete. There is coverage, largely in the Oxford Mail but I don't think it amounts to a GNG pass. Sewage spill incident [19], a teacher at the school was featured in The Guardian re Brexit [20], local report on an Ofsted inspection [21] and letters about homelessness [22]. Primary schools do not normally have their own article and I don't believe this to be an exception. The school's teachers look to have been taking some kind of sociopolitical stance which has been being picked up in the local press and elsewhere, but no real evaluation or criticism. Possible redirect to Donnington, Oxfordshire, but not advocating. Rupples (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - like all primary schools, has received the usual run-of-the-mill random coverage but nothing that would lead us all to imagine the school itself is notable. It might possibly be worth a one-line mention at Donnington, or more likely not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:MILL, and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 26 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!} 22:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadley Learning Community[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has had no secondary sources since creation, only sources I could find were trivial mentions in local media, certainly not significant coverage. Earlier AfD 16 years ago advanced arguments now rejected by the community regarding school notability. AusLondonder (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. AusLondonder (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Available sourcing meets WP:GNG. It would be very rare for a secondary school in the UK not to. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to sources in the article or elsewhere? Because the article contains just one source potentially acceptable, however it is a run of the mill local media mention of a government inspection. AusLondonder (talk) 15:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm referring to sources that can be found with a search. AfD isn't only judged by sourcing already in the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not finding them. I'm seeing a lot of directory listings and government websites which do not contribute to satisfying notability requirements. Simply asserting that all schools or all schools in the UK are notable is repeating an argument that has been comprehensively rejected by the community and should therefore be disregarded. AusLondonder (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two cursory searches (beyond a plain Google look) give evidence of notability, with sources available through 1) Google Scholar (11 results, including Engaging parents: why and how Technical Report, Shaping a New Educational Landscape: Exploring Possibilities for Education in the 21st Century and Business Development - A sure way to spell success. This last one has a £14.00 fee, too steep for me, but still, it exists!) and 2) through ProQuest, accessible by logging in first to Wikmedia Commons, then The Wikipedia Library Platform available to any registered editor whose account is six months old and has 500 edits. Once on the platform, scroll down to ProQuest, where you can access 184 ProQuest links to articles containing the search term "Hadley Learning Community" (in quotes); even if only 10% have significant coverage, GNG would be met easily. See: Synetrix provides ICT for Hadley Learning Community, Olympian dives in with stories to tell in children's book, and Pupils are filmed for Children in Need choir, Primary keeps 'good' rating, Children dress up for author's visit. Were it up to me, editors nominating articles for AfD would be required to conduct searches beyond Google. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Some additional sources from the local news, Shropshire Live:

Telford special school shortlisted for national award

Hadley primary school rated as "good"

Landmark Telford learning community hailed by Minister

New careers and enterprise hub opens at Hadley Learning Community

Education partnership will be a boost for Telford students and local economy

Glowing Ofsted report for Hadley Learning Community

HLC Primary success in Jaguar Challenge

— Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:47, 22 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 23:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szervác[edit]

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

PROD removed. Namecruft that fails WP:NNAME, WP:NOTDICT and WP:GNG. No reliable sources outside of databases, and even then not many are reliable. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NNAME and the targeted links don't even have en-wikipedia articles (two Commons pages and a Hungarian wikipedia link with no actual article). So no evidence of notability or need for this page. LizardJr8 (talk) 05:30, 14 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 10:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NNAME. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:52, 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 11:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Awatramani[edit]

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

Individual maybe passing WP:GNG, but does not pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:NARTIST. It may be WP:WHATNOT User4edits (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Maharashtra. User4edits (talk) 10:05, 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 11:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Paul Kristian Gylche[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL, millions died in German concentration camps during WWII and no particular information is given (nor could I find it during a WP:BEFORE) as to why this victim was notable. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Denmark. CptViraj (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems entirely non-notable. AlexandraAVX (talk) 11:16, 22 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 11:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sher Hyderi[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:GNG as well WP:POLITICIAN.. the references cited only mention about this death... nom it for deletion per WP:BIO1E Saqib (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. CptViraj (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. 41.99.221.13 (talk) 20:41, 24 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 ‎ closed as the page got moved back to draftspace by its creator a few hours after this discussion was initiated. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Graham (Kansas politician)[edit]

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

Politician in a US Senate race that lost (receiving 2% of the vote). No indication of notability. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Primefac (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not yet notable per WP:NPOL. Can't find SIGCOV, just routine local coverage, and inclusion in brief mentions of candidates. Wikishovel (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No credible claim to notability. Running in an election and receiving 2% of the vote certainly isn't one. AusLondonder (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing beyond WP:ROTM election coverage, nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Shaws username . talk . 13:05, 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!} 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Farnsworth Wright[edit]

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

unnotable professor. only sourced to an obituary. ltb d l (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, and United Kingdom. ltb d l (talk) 07:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as internet search did not discover any sources other than the obituary to establish notability. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That obituary appeared in The Times. A check of the Times Digital Archive shows that it is a full obituary. We have always considered an obit in a major national newspaper to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia. The Times only gives full obits to notable people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@necrothesp: since when?? ltb d l (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when what? Since when did we consider an obit in a major newspaper conferred notability? Since forever. There is long consensus for this. Why on earth would Wikipedia not consider people to be notable if the main British newspaper of record did? Another example of the contrast between Wikiworld and the real world that some editors seem to champion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Times obituary should be enough, but for those who worship every letter of holy WP:GNG and need to see multiple in-depth sources, I added to the article several published reviews of his book. Because there is only the one book, it isn't quite enough for WP:AUTHOR, but we're going by GNG instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG per arguments of Necrotheshp and David Eppstein. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:31, 27 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) 09:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Way to Life[edit]

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

Can't find any sources on it. Searching newspapers.com and the Newspaper Archive gives a couple results on Hoff's *next* book, the Tao of Pooh, but nothing on this one. Rusalkii (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 07:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage outside book stores and user-generated reviews. Jamedeus (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond a brief listing in Pulishers Weekly (not a review), I cannot find two or more non-trivial published works of which the book is the subject. By definition, it fails WP:NBOOK. Οἶδα (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think I've actually read this many years ago, but based on the evidence, it fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 26 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. given search for sources and improvement in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Southampton Yacht Club[edit]

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

Has existed unsourced for nearly 20 years. Lacks any substantive content other than where the club was located. Searches have failed to unearth "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom MNewnham (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, United Kingdom, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any yacht club with the "royal" prefix is likely to be notable. There aren't that many of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might need to read WP:ATA. You don't inherit notability from having royal in your name nor does it exempt you from the sourcing test. If you can point me to sufficient sources to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG I would be happily corrected on my judgement regarding the lack of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I don't. Suggesting this is inherited is frankly ludicrous. They're granted the royal title for a reason. It's not just something they choose to call themselves. That wouldn't be permitted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You were the one who suggested notability is obtained by virtue of having royal in the name, rather than through significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, my point was that yacht clubs with the royal prefix have been granted that prefix by a monarch for a reason. They haven't just adopted it because they felt like it. The royal yacht clubs are a select group. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason then? Where are the significant independent sources attesting to this? Reywas92^Talk 17:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero independent sources, fails WP:GNG. I hope the closing admin is smart enough to disregard the above !vote that's making things up out of thin air wih no such consensus or sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not making things up. Speaking from a position of basic knowledge. Always a useful thing to have before commenting, I find. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to become snide. Your argument that anything royal is inherently notable was quite obviously made up. AusLondonder (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should read the comment I was responding to before accusing me of being snide! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I care? There's a lot of things that have gotten royal charters, but there's simply so basis for automatic notability for them. Reywas92^Talk 17:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And usually they are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 10 seconds of Google Books searching brings up a wealth of reliable independent sources, several of which provide significant coverage. Waggers TALK 09:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did search Google Books and I'm not seeing that. AusLondonder (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit in Southampton in 50 Buildings. I'm not sure about other sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is about their former premises. Certainly not "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required per WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 13:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks to Waggers edits and articles about the early club history I found among the first 20 hits out of 1,945 matches from newspapers.com (available by signing it to Wikimedia Commons and then Wikipedia LIbrary), the article now has "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". While I probably won't have time to peruse all the remaining 1,925 hits on newspapers.com, I will look for a few more recent pieces to add to the article. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Waggers and Grand'mere Eugene's improvements. Toughpigs (talk) 16:49, 26 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!} 05:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Brattell[edit]

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

no sourcing in here, and no good sourcing online other than event notices and his own website. anyway i think this also meets the WP:TNT thing. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No page updates for a decade MNewnham (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been revised with citations and some sections removed, 22 February 2024 following notification of deletion from Senior Wikipedia Administrator and Editor, guidelines have been read and followed in order to avoid deletion. Kirasondra (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Removing material does not allow it to pass WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some material with citations was added. Material removed was due to lack of current online sources - no archive material on organisations websites or subject/event occured before common use of the internet so no digital evidence ever existed. Some pre-internet documentation can be digitised in the future. Kirasondra (talk) 22:52, 26 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. I think I can close this now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article and the one editor who advocated for Delete has crossed out their "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had to handle several steps manually rather than using our AFD closing tools because this article was moved to a different page title during the course of this discussion. Please do not do this in the future. You can wait until the AFD was closed to move the article to a new page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Patton[edit]

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

Patton is an elite multisport athlete that fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:NHSPHSATH, WP:NHOOPS and WP:GNG. He has been hired in as a shooting coach by various National Basketball Association teams Timberwolves in 2016, Mavericks in 2018, and Bulls in 2023. These are not roles that generally support notability. High school star player in three sports. Played at DePaul where one year he went 29–53 on threes. No NCAA records or statistical championships. Not even conference statistical championships in the mid-major conferences DePaul was in during his years. This falls far short of any test of notability. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per TonyTheTiger's expansion. SportsGuy789 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how he fares on WP:NHOOPS:2 because the article has not fleshed out his career. I would even change with an All-League somewhere. I probably jumped the gun based on his possible pro career. I think we often let basketball players slide with many pro teams. I am not sure why I jumped the gun.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article FWIW. Possibly weak notability. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 2nd team All-IBA selection I can move to Weak Keep-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having trouble trying to 5x this guy. There is not much out there. There was Peter Patton who worked for Gund Arena at least from 1999-2003.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- He holds the Depaul single-season 3FG% record because they have a 20 made minimum, which is the lowest I have ever seen. His other notable accomplishment at DePaul was going 5-5 in a game according to the record book, but the press describes the day as a 3-3 3-point shot performance. He has never held any other DePaul record.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone source whether this is the same Peter Patton who was the Gund Arena director of bookings during the 1999-2003 period where I see his name in the press.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it encyclopedic to include that he pitched a 2-hitter in high school? Comment here or on article talk.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Minnesota, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 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!} 05:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ofelia Hernandez[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2011. Completely unnotable mayor of a small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL, no secondary sources found. 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) 05:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. CptViraj (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I searched and could not find any meaningful in-depth coverage about this individual. Left guide (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in-depth from a reliable source that isn't WP:ROTM, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL Shaws username . talk . 13:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:53, 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. Feel free to create a Redirect from this page title to the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Hofmann[edit]

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

Unnotable mayor of a small city, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Received some coverage upon his death, though I don't think that means anything. 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) 05:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. CptViraj (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Long before his death, the LA Daily News wrote this about him in 2008, and the LA Times wrote this about him in 2010. Combined with this 2012 piece by the Daily Breeze (already in the WP article) and the various published reactions to his death, I believe he meets WP:N criteria. Left guide (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think the previously mentioned articles are satisfactory seeing as they're all from local outlets. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I don't believe that a source being "local" disqualifies it from counting towards notability, especially when "local" in this case refers to a metropolitan area with 18 million people, with the Los Angeles Times being the sixth-largest newspaper by circulation in the U.S. (also significant enough as a source on Wikipedia to have its own RSP entry – WP:LATIMES). If such a clause disqualifying "local" coverage is written anywhere in the notability guidelines, please provide supporting evidence. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE disqualifies routine news coverage such as the first article. WP:AUD is specifically about companies and organisations, but specifically disqualifies local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is closer than the other ones, but I don't think the coverage there is necessarily enough for an article. The first one is definitely just routine campaign coverage. The LA Times article isn't bad, though. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect>>>>Lawndale, California#Municipal government, where he is already mentioned.Djflem (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer's sentiments. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 26 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!} 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Circle[edit]

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

Tagged for lacking sources since 2010. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wouldn't consider Al's Book Club as a quality review (Al Roker was OG cool though), but that's all the coverage I can find. Nothing on Common Sense Media, which seemed the most likely place to look first. Oaktree b (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. 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, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Hudak, Tina (April 2010). "The 39 Clues, Book 5: The Black Circle". School Library Journal. Vol. 56, no. 4. p. 60. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "David Pittu does an admirable job of narrating, giving each character a distinctive voice; listeners may find the chronic raspy quality of Dan's voice wearing by the end of the story. The exaggerated voicing of the bonus material at the end of the story is reminiscent of old time radio shows."
2. "The Black Circle". The Horn Book Magazine. Vol. 21, no. 1. Spring 2010. p. 64. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Qatar National Library.
  The Book Review Index verifies the publication details of the review.
  The review notes: "The series still pushes credulity past the tipping point, but these installments introduce new developments (heretofore cartoonish competitors reveal hints of humanity; the sibs' stalwart nanny becomes suspicious; clues to their parents' death surface) that rejuvenate the foundering plots."
3. Schowengerdt, Sarah (April 2011). "The 39 Clues, Book 5: The Black Circle". From: Faces: People, Places, and Cultures. Vol. 27, no. 7. Cricket Media. p. 47. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "In this fast-paced volume, Amy and Dan are drawn to Russia when they receive a mysterious telegram with a challenge from someone called "N.R.R.""
4. "Staff pick of the week". The Darien Times. 2009-09-03. Archived from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  The review notes: "The temptation to find out what really happened the night their parents died may prove too strong to resist. Full of danger and intrigue - a great game of cat and mouse!"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Black Circle to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new Reception section added by Cunard. Toughpigs (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. Geschichte (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't withdraw as someone else has already voted delete, but I think Cunard has established that SIGCOV has been met and the article has greatly improved. As the nominator, changing my vote to Keep per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 15:06, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara H. Stuart[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. All 7 sources provided are primary. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She has a high h-index score of 39 on Google Scholar. Her work has been cited over 13,000 times.[23] Netherzone (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citations count, h-index, and i10-index seem respectable enough. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Would the nominator care to comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I trust your judgement Xxanthippe so will withdraw this. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 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 04:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking News Network[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline. reads like ad copy. ltb d l (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and New Jersey. ltb d l (talk) 03:37, 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 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 04:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKNI-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:18, 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 04:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHVM-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Minnesota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 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 StarFist series. ✗plicit 04:45, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First to Fight (novel)[edit]

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

Contested WP:BLAR. Should be redirected to the series, StarFist series, which appears to be notable.

No reviews on PW/Kirkus, no relevant hits on newspapers.com. PW does review some of the later books in the series: [24]. asilvering (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the other early entries in the series:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. asilvering (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all and~~ redirect to main series. My search for reviews of the individual books came up absolutely empty. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ouro I hope you mean "redirect", rather than delete and redirect? I don't see any reason to wipe the edit history of these articles. -- asilvering (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Asilvering Oh of course! My mistake, forgive me! --Ouro (blah blah) 13:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to StarFist series, preserving the current content in the history for possible future use, and providing a very brief plot summary for the novels not yet present in at that target, as WP:ATD. Thanks to the nominator for providing the details on their WP:BEFORE search, which is very helpful for other participants and far too often missing in deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The series is notable - the latter books, as the nominator said, are notable and have reviews in PW. The reason the other users cannot find reviews on the earlier books is because of their date of publication, the late 90s and early 2000s, which makes them difficult to find on the internet; this thus only penalizes their earlier date of publication. Nevertheless, they all have notability, and were big sellers:
- First to Fight can be found in a Top 10 Kindle sales list in 2009 [25], and has 2k+ user reviews on Goodreads [26]. Excerpts from it can be found in grammar books such as Andrea DeCapua's Grammar for Teachers [27]
- Interzone reviewed School of Fire in 1998, praising the authors' experience [28]
- Derek Buker's 2002 Science Fiction Advisory recommends the StarFist series in the Space Operas category - by then the series had only ran up to Kingdom's Swords [29].
- If I on a cursory search found these, those with access to sci-fi magazines of the era will surely find more. Cheers, Coeusin (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Coeusin I was excited you'd found an Interzone review, which I expected would be good coverage, but alas that's really, really minimal, smaller even than a typical PW review, which is the barest of bare minimums. We don't use "has sold a lot of copies" to define notability, nor do we allow notability to be inherited downwards (eg from a series to an individual book). It's very possible that earlier reviews have fallen into the black hole that is the internet/digitization policies of 1990-2005, but it's also quite possible that the series only picked up steam with reviewers later in its run. Either way, the time to find those hypothetical reviews is now. Otherwise, the better option is to merge/redirect. If in the future someone finds a pile of sources that no one found during this AfD, they can spin the articles back out. -- asilvering (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles on the books were kept as articles and not redirects it would be easier to add information to them as we find it. There is information to be found, but, as with any subject in a historical field of study, this tends to be a gradual and slow process. This is harder to me because I don't live in the US, which is the main market of these books. Americans could, I'm almost certain, waltz into any mid-sized library, look into the sci-fi mags of the era and find a good amound of information. These books were published by Del Rey, which was one of the largest publishers for books of this kind, and not for nothing (the series' 17 volumes should also speak for something). But of course, as you said, these are all hypotheticals. Coeusin (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coeusin, it is not more difficult to add information to an article on a series than it is to add information to an article on a book. Not to mention, no information has been found for most of these since their creation nearly two decades ago; if we also find no or minimal information during this AfD, it's unlikely anyone will ever come along and add it. Again, if that hypothetical does happen (no one finds notability-securing sources now, but someone does at some point in the future), there won't be any objection to de-redirecting the articles and expanding them. -- asilvering (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to series. Acknowledging the new sources mentioned above, I don't see the bar being met for these individual books. PW is a librarian trade publication, designed to review widely to educate librarians on what to buy, and inclusion wherein does not confer notability. Anything sourced to be said here can be amply put in summary style in the main article. I can sympathize with the fact that some periodicals are hard to find but that's why we have book review indexes. @Mike Christie, would you happen to know if these received reviews in sci-fi periodicals of the era? I'm less familiar with sci-fi-specific indices. czar 17:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reviews listed here; that doesn't mean there aren't any but if any of the main genre magazines had reviewed it that would probably show up. I can't check Locus till Monday or Tuesday but will have a look then, though I'm doubtful -- Locus lists all books received but generally reviews only the most prominent. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series. After posting the reply to Czar, above, I remembered that you can look at the individual issues of Locus in the ISFDB; see here for example. So the reviews for Locus have been indexed, and they would show up on the book pages if those had been reviewed. I checked each book in the series and none have any indexed reviews in the ISFDB. I agree with Czar's comments that one or two sentence reviews amount to no more than acknowledgement of receipt and don't confer notability. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, just to confirm, you checked all the books in the series, not just the ones up for this AfD bundle? The only books I bundled into this AfD are the ones with no outside sources, because I wanted to put up only the most obvious first. But the others don't have enough sources present in the articles for individual notability either, as I recall. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I checked all of them. None had any indexed reviews. ISFDB only indexes genre review sources, but very few publications that are not genre sources are likely to have reviewed these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:29, 24 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.