< February 28	March 01 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 09:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Papara (company)[edit]

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

This is a for-profit company that has to meet NCORP to be notable. Note that this guideline sets a higher standard for sources than the regular GNG. The source must have an independent author and independent content. The latter part is the most important difference here. Independent content means: "original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject".

Coming to this article specifically, we can see that the sourcing here mostly consists of sponsorship agreements made between the Papara and another party, or sources directly from websites related to the company. While not in the article, other sources include announcements of Papara buying other companies, Papara expanding its services, and even more sponsorship agreements. While all of these are generally published by reliable outlets, they can't be considered as independent content since they rely on "content produced by interested parties" and hence do not count towards notability.

I tried searching for better sources to no avail. There are so much trash sources online that it's almost impossible to pick out good ones. Most book sources are about Papara, French Polynesia. Notable Turkish companies almost always have a journal article on DergiPark (partially) dedicated to themselves, which is not the case here. Nothing worthy of note in TWL either. It appears that Papara is actively throwing money for the recognizability of its name. This practice, however, does not always coincide with our notability guidelines; the lack of independent sources means that the company is not notable for Wikipedia as it fails the subject-specific guideline set for the topic. Styyx (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Turkey. Styyx (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the 1 billion 416 million TL stadium agreement with Trabzonspor [1] and the sponsorship agreement with Beşiktaş [2] are noteworthy on their own. Lionel Cristiano^? 17:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lionel Cristiano, did you by any chance see the nomination statement above regarding sources on sponsorship agreements or did you simply throw in a "too long; didn't read"? Styyx (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this is football. Lionel Cristiano^? 05:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Delete’’’ as the organization seems to be not yet notable with sourcing coming mainly from primarily sources. However some good points were mentioned here in the discussion and the notability is not zero. DraculaParrot (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely sourced to a blog, and all I can find are PR items or fintech churnalism. This is about the only thing in a RS [3], basically "company makes lots of money". Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing for notability. Bro you are wrong. Papara refunds some of the money with its cashback feature. For example, when I pay Netflix and Spotify every month, I get half of my money back. Or when I buy medicine from the pharmacy, 10% of my money is refunded. 149.140.110.81 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain in Wikipedia terms. Styyx (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no question that this company's products are important for its customers, but that's not the question. There's no sign this company passes WP:NCORP and/or WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People's Progressive Movement (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)[edit]

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

Defunct political party which achieved a maximum of less than 3% of the vote in one election. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT as not having been the subject of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 23:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Didn't find WP:SIGCOV, too. Better Nuncio (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:ORGCRIT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SIGCOV clause CSMention269 (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh Soudhan Wars[edit]

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

I'm already discussing two similar articles by the same creator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhanoti, it would be nice if some people could take a look there as well.

Here, we have something called apparently the "Sikh Soudan Wars", or the "Sikh Sudhan Wars", or the "Sikh Sidhnuti War". The section for the "First Sikh Sudhan War" has one source[4] which doesn't mention Sudhan, Soudhan, or Sidhnuti.

The Second War, about "Pindi Kahota, the main gate of Sudhnuti" being bombarded and so on, is sourced to [5], which doesn't mention Kahota, and this, which also doesn't mention Kahota. In fact, there are apparently no sources at all for Ranjit Singh taking an army of 40000 to Pindi Kahota[6][7] nor for the same with "Pindi Kahuta", which I suppose is what was meant.

Basically, what we need is two or so good sources actually naming and discussing the "Sikh Sudhan Wars" as such. Without this, this is some fabrication at worst, or at best reframing some actual events into a new narrative. Fram (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Jammu and Kashmir. Fram (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 16 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!} 08:25, 23 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!} 23:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, pretty clear the writer resorted to the AfC trick of spamming references to show notability, except in this case it's spamming refernces to show verifiability without having to assign a claim to a given citation. I suppose a full BEFORE search ought to be by someone who speaks Punjabi and/or is familiar with the military history of the region, but given the lack of understanding by the writer of basic PAGs, and the low quality of the prose, I'm fine with presumptively deleting this. Mach61 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Serious WP:V problems and elevate risk of being a hoax/spam. As users familiar with the subject appear, it may be recreated later but for now it seems to be a case of WP:TNT. Svartner (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Buffalo State Bengals football team[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS as a Division III football team that comprised an ordinary 3-3 record. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 16 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!} 19:59, 23 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!} 23:23, 29 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 Leonardo Ortolani. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L'ultima Burba[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't read Italian but I'm not seeing anything which would meet the notability standards on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Italy. JMWt (talk) 11:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The corresponding article in Italian has references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read Italian? Are these 'significant' coverage as per the GNG on en.wiki? 1 is the page on it.wiki for everyone else JMWt (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can read Italian; one of the sources on the it.wiki page is a biography of the author (on a site whose reliability is probably debatable), the other two are collections of comic strips that contained the work in question. Not sufficient for WP:GNG. I would recommend a Redirect to Leonardo Ortolani as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Italian wiki article has two newspaper articles that don't have links, as external sources. I can't find them, so I can't comment. All I can find are links to the comic strip or a website for it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Leonardo Ortolani. Sources demonstrating WP:GNG might exist, but they haven't been brought forward in either the English-language or Italian-language Wikipedia entries. In neither entry am I seeing that there is so much to say about the comic that it can't be adequately summarised in a few sentences in Leonardo Ortolani, without prejudice to the article's recreation if editors can cite appropriate sources. As a sidenote, the article should probably be L'ultima burba with a lowercase B per MOS:FOREIGNTITLE. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Leonardo Ortolani as above. -- asilvering (talk) 04:14, 29 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!} 23:20, 29 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 Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker#Accidents. If you prefer a different Redirect target, please discuss it on the talk page. Feel free to Merge any content that is appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States Air Force Flight W05[edit]

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

No evidence of notability (a blog and a non-independent source) for this incident, which ended well and seems to have had no major consequences otherwise. A redirect to List of Mayday episodes#Season 21 (2021) may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The television show should count as a reliable source. The article from Grissom indicates that people were still paying attention to the incident 25 years later. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable military accident without much lasting impact. The Grissom article is functionally a primary source. SportingFlyer T·C 12:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a unnotable incident. Even if it was a civilian flight, it wouldn't rate an article. No deaths, no changes in policy, nothing. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Mayday episodes and 434th Air Refueling Wing - I believe this will forever be a stub Mr Vili talk 13:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not what you believe, its what reliable content is available ;). And there is much more than what is now in the article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the TV show, the incident has largely been ignored by media. I can find a report on the accident from the military, which is PRIMARY. Same for the air force website used in the article now. Not enough sourcing we can use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker#Accidents - The fact that only one major source has talked about the accident in the many years since it should show that it is not notable enough for an article. A redirect to this or the Mayday episodes article would be good. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 434th Air Refueling Wing, the unit concerned. Add all relevant data from the Grissom air force story; and the Accident ID ref; and also if people want, yes the TV show, to both 434th ARW and Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker#Accidents. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the incident had a lasting effect. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would normally go for a Redirect to Boeing_KC-135_Stratotanker#Accidents, where the incident is already mentioned (with a source). But the typo in the page name - lowercase 'o' instead of the digit zero in W05 - makes this an unlikely search term. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 29 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!} 23:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. No objections to redirect(s) mentioned above, though. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker#Accidents. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Schwenningen, Sigmaringen. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schnaitkapf[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. The refs on de.wiki do not appear to meet the GNG here. I don't speak German but I'm not seeing much which could be considered in terms of notability. JMWt (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GEOLAND applies. It's the highest point in the region and there are some references in the German article, and I've found a number of hiking entries, especially when including the Wilhemshütte at the base of the radio tower. Whether this is enough I'm not yet sure. SportingFlyer T·C 12:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while it's the highest local point, it's hardly the Matterhorn, and seems to be more of a local rambling destination than a great peak to which the world's mountaineers flock in hopes of conquest. We could keep the article, but does that serve our readers? It might be better to merge with Schwenningen, Sigmaringen and leave a redirect. Our article on Schwenningen is currently very thin, and the German equivalent does mention the Schnaitkapf, which is obviously viewed as a beautiful asset by the Schwenningeners. I'd rather have one good article on the locality than two unconnected stubs. Elemimele (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
expand/merge to Sigmaringen (district)#Geography which is after all the area it's supposed to be the high point of. Other than that it doesn't seem to be of much note. Mangoe (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Redirect/Merge option to Schwenningen, Sigmaringen makes perfect sense, and is probably a better organization scheme for English readers than a separate article. I also can't find any significant coverage of it in German or other sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge as per either of the above Mr Vili talk 22:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different target articles suggested as a Redirect/Merge, can we settle on one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect/Merge option to Schwenningen, Sigmaringen Djflem (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RAAM BAND[edit]

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

sources do not satisfy subject's notability criteria WP:GNG Macbeejack ☎ 15:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Egypt. Macbeejack ☎ 15:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for this person found. Many hits for a group called Hypernova, one member shares a similar name I think. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Majority of the sources that featured RAAM BAND are in Arabic (Eypytian language) where he's well known. I've also added a few. I guess he met the WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNGEndik Zamuiri (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing stated in the article, which is just that he's played a few shows, is notable enough for WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh LaBove[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:AUTOBIO (see creator's username, as he didn't even try to hide) about an actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test isn't in listing roles, it's in showing WP:GNG-worthy reliable source media coverage about at least some of their performances: biographical coverage about them, reviews of the films or TV shows that single their performances out for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that they won or were nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
But the closest thing to a notable role listed here is a television commercial, not a major starring role in a feature film or television series -- he only ever had bit parts otherwise, but the article has existed since 2006, and has been tagged for lacking sources since 2019, without ever having even one reliable or GNG-worthy source in it at all.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I definitely agree that he doesn't pass WP:NACTOR, all I could find in WP:RS about that was a 1994 profile in Newsday [8]. So I looked for his academic work and while searches for academic articles or books don't turn up very much, or appear to be widely cited, he does appear to have been moderately prolific on commenting on US/Canada and terrorism issues in Canadian media, as Joshua LaBove, in the Vancouver Sun, [9] [10] [11] [12] Prince George Citizen, [13] [14] (via The Canadian Press) The Daily Gleaner, [15] The Tri - Cities Now,[16] The Chronicle Herald, [17] and The Province [18] [19]

(All accessed though the Wikipedia libary)

I don't think it's enough to push him into notability under #7 of WP:NACADEMIC but it might be worth someone who's better at finding academic sources looking some more. Shaws username . talk . 17:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shaws username . talk . 17:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 17:40, 22 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!} 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTWEBHOST. In 2006, when this was created, newbies didn't know, but today, everybody knows this is untenable. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical theory of democracy[edit]

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

This is not a notable theory. The sourcing in the article appears to be diverse from a first glance, but upon a closer examination it's clear that the only the sources tied to one person actually talk about a 'Mathematical theory of democracy'. The rest of the sources are inserted into the article in a WP:SYNTH fashion. Thenightaway (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mathematics. Shaws username . talk . 17:43, 22 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!} 23:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the nominator has it right: this is one person's idea, puffed up with other sources that at best discuss the background. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muki (duo)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I could find one review for an album of theirs [20] but thats it. No profiles of the group are extant as far as I can tell Mach61 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Mach61 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Geardona (talk to me?) 18:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No sources used and I also couldn't see anything better out there. Editing84 (talk) 09:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Scene (magazine)[edit]

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

A website despite the name. Created by a user with an obvious conflict of interest third party coverage seems extremely limited. Of the external coverage mentioned in the article entrepreneur.comdoesn’t really talk about the website but instead the guy’s family. amazing-kids.org talk about it a bit but seems to be a pure puff piece Ypulse is a single paragraph that doesn’t really provide any specifics

The website wasn’t absolutely nothing and if anyone ever writes a major work on music websites in the early 2000s it could become notable but I don’t see it being notable at this point (although there seems to have been a relaunch attempt about 12 years ago when they got their hands on the teenscene.com domain). ©Geni (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Websites, Illinois, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 22 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!} 23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. The article reads like a promo rather than an encyclopedic entry too. TH1980 (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittney Chantele[edit]

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

Most of the sources listed look like advertisements, some even link to Chantele's social media accounts. This person looks like an obscure artist with only one successful song from 5 years ago. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 21:50, 22 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!} 23:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - Chantele is an up and coming artist with a wide range of abilities and skills who happened to gain success early on in their career. They're still producing and creating new artistic works and continuing in their activism. Lovemedead (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lovemedead -- your personal opinion is irrelevant. You need to cite valid reasons based on Wikipedia policies of notability. Nirva20 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG and SIGCOV. Nirva20 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack notability issues CSMention269 (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Bok-man[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Arguably fails at WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find sigcov, not enough games to pass threshold of notability. toobigtokale (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater|(tαlk) 21:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Empire Online[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this game isn't notable under the standards of WP:GNG. This article features 0 secondary sources nor could I find any secondary sources when searching for this game either, outside of a lot NFT/crypto related websites. Just seemingly nothing is keeping this article afloat. Captain Galaxy 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Captain Galaxy 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Cryptocurrency. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there is not much information on the internet is that the game is released on Sunday, March 3. But the NFTs that will be used in the game have been previously published for Mint, so there is a lot of information for its NFT.--VatooVatoo (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's not how notability works. You might like to familiarise yourself with the general notability guideline. Generally, upcoming recently-released games that have no coverage are considered to be released too soon to justify an article. Happy to help if you have any questions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no coverage indicating no notability. Suggest not draftifying as there is nothing indicating pending coverage for a recent release. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vrxces. WP:BEFORE doesn't show sufficient sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Gwang-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Arguably fails at WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find sigcov, not enough games to pass threshold of notability. toobigtokale (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although I think there needs to be a discussion about senior national team appearances meeting notability requirements. Some national teams, like North Korea and other non-Western nations, don't (and in some cases literally can't) get coverage from trustworthy media sources ever under most circumstances, which skews notability standards drastically in favor of European and North and South American players. Anwegmann (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I thought about redirecting to North Korea national football team for a sec, but he doesn't mentioned. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Murphy (1900s footballer)[edit]

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

There was general agreement at Talk:John Murphy (1900s footballer)#Requested move 20 December 2023 that this football player is not notable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bradford City A.F.C. players (1–49 league appearances) - firstly, the claim that there was "general agreement" at the RM mentioned by the nominator is misleading at best; one user said "I'm not sure if this player is even notable with just one appearance but that can be discussed separately" and that's it. Secondly, at the RM I suggested a redirect, and that seems the most sensible ATD. If the nominator had taken the time to consider that then we could have saved a lot of time with this AFD. Giant Snowman 21:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was also Govvy's comment Close and delete No point in a redirect. I'm more in line with Govvy's thinking - the title is both ambiguous and not a likely search term so a deletion is IMO better than a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting redirect per GiantSnowman and what I said on that RM in December 2023, where the quoted text is used above. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. I'm tempted just to vote delete, though, given that he made exactly one appearance. Anwegmann (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Lawrence Galleries[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP. Everything I found on them is advertisement. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Companies. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ having separately come to essentially the same conclusion as nom. There's some mere-mentions on Google Scholar but nowhere near WP:ORGCRITE. Otherwise, just promotional database entries online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm swayed by the quality of the LA Times coverage and based on its timestamps I suspect that additional coverage exists offline. The French Quarterly coverage also helps. Keep _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added two Los Angeles Times articles without too much searching. The "problem" here is that these are prolific and well-known galleries, and their personal items overwhelm search engines. They have compiled a great deal of self-published articles on art and artists, adding their scholarship and commentary to the field. This is a notable chain of galleries, and while they should have more articles pertaining to their work, the two L.A. Times pages should do for meeting WP:GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Martin Lawrence Galleries should be kept on Wikipedia due to its significant role in the art world, showcasing works by renowned artists across multiple U.S. locations for over 40 years, highlighting its cultural and educational importance. Its presence in industry publications and news further supports its notability and relevance, making it a valuable resource for readers interested in art and gallery operations. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Is there really enough here to meet WP:NRIVALRY (read: gng)? Not seeing it. Sourcing that I have found describes the two in broader contexts of tennis competition, but not specifically focused on their rivalry. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see it either. Per Wikiproject Tennis: "According to WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable. We can only have articles about tennis rivalries if there is significant media coverage about the rivalry. For example, great rivalries like Agassi–Sampras or Federer–Nadal warrant an article, but articles about rivalries like Agassi–Rafter and Federer–Hewitt have been deleted by the community. If in doubt, consult WP:TENNIS before creating a new rivalry article." That's what this looks like to me. The fact it was deleted before, when they were both playing and in the news, speaks loudly that this is not a player interaction that requires a stand-alone article. 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Fyunck(click) (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article doesn't seem to be a "rivalry" versus a head-to-head match history. It's not something that I can find any significant references to. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy A. Robinton[edit]

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

Not seeing notability from GNG or research. Forbes listing is... a Forbes listing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article in Nature that's been cited 1300 times [21], but I'm not sure how that stacks up overall. Doesn't seem notable otherwise, with little to nothing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wish people would ensure that they had proper pages (Google Scholar or similar) on their publications. There are enough name similarities that it is hard for me to know what her citations really are, beyond that they look modest. A good start, but I think WP:TOOSOON, particularly as she only has junior awards. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vinnytsia missile strikes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Lisa Dmytrieva[edit]

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

very sad, but coverage (in English) seems wholly confined to a brief span, WP:BIO1E applies. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. FWIW, I think in terms of notability this would fall under WP:NEVENT - someone's murder is more an event than a biography, though people tend to organize them in an in between way.

There is some later coverage - it was mostly spelled "Liza Dmitrieva", and after the guy who ordered the attack died in 2023 it got brought up again - though I'm not sure "significantly". I don't really have any strong opinions on keep or delete but people can judge for themselves. Not sure if it's enough to pass NEVENT. Also in either case the name of this article runs afoul of guidelines because there was no murder conviction in any case. This could probably be merged to a section in the missile strikes article if it doesn't.PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Merge to Vinnytsia missile strikes. Not all of it, just the more relevant part, but it really is just a subset of the strikes anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Ottaway[edit]

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

Coverage is all constrained to a few week span (implying all derivative of the same coverage, presumably The Telegraph article). See for instance North and South, by the same author. Not indicative of long term notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and my search for sources; the limited coverage appears to be interview-based, and otherwise churned as tabloid/sensationalism in low-quality sources and blogs. WP:NOTNEWS seem to further support deletion at this time; enduring notability does not seem supported by independent, reliable, secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 21:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The front page of the Telegraph Magazine is a reputable source which includes fact checking as part of the process. 86.22.29.36 (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most coverage seems to be culture war stuff from GB News and the Telegraph, all around the time of the original story. Fails WP:BLP1E: "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual....Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." AusLondonder (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This case can be compared to that of David Reimer in the USA, which is still discussed 20 years after his death. 86.22.29.36 (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a BLP disaster of a marginally notable person, with scant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Street (director)[edit]

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

Unsourced biography since 2009 with no RS. Was probably an autobiography when created (main editors are User:Paulstreet1 and User:Filmstreetster). Natg 19 (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United Kingdom. Natg 19 (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For as much as it counts for an IP editor to contribute here, and to repeat what I said at WP:COIN: the things they've worked on are notable (mainly commercials, so not enough to have Wikipedia articles about them) but notability isn't inheritable. The two films they claim to have directed don't have articles, which is a clue to how notable they are, but non-notability isn't inheritable either. However, I'm not seeing an actual claim of notability for the subject himself – just for the things he worked on. And I'm not seeing any useful third-party neutral reliable sources that back up his claims to have directed the commercials in question, let alone that he having worked on them makes him notable in himself. I would, were my opinion to count here, advise deletion. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 18:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awards used to be BTAA , could have been a misspelling or autocorrect, plenty of D&AD awards for this 125.236.143.191 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you declared your conflict of interest on this matter – both here and when making changes to the article itself. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No conflict, just correcting citations, due to having seen Street's "Safehouse" on Tubi, I googled Paul Street and ended on this page and seeing it ready for deletion. 125.236.143.191 (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance. A WP:BEFORE finds nothing. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 18:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFILMMAKER. For example, subject claims to have won a BAFTA Craft award for a BMW commercial in '95. ~~Even BAFTA doesn't list past winners of the TV craft awards and Wayback Machine doesn't have anything. If BAFTA itself won't verify that they awarded someone, we can't presume any notability, can we?~~ BAFTA doesn't list any director awards for TV craft in 1995 all the way through 1998 when he says he won two of them. Searching BAFTA awards, it seems no one named Paul Street ever won an award from them nor did his commercial "scales" ever win anything. It seems an odd thing to falsify. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance, unsourced BLP that makes unverifiable claims and does not seem to meet NFILMMAKER. nf utvol (talk) 19:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations from Shoot Online as this shows a clear timeline of Street's work, including being a key force at A Band Apart among others. 125.236.143.191 (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, and extremely little in the way of sources, even non-RS. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, fails WP:FILMMAKER. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't find a source that confirms the awards Street has supposedly won. Mooonswimmer 21:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some award citations, very easy to find actually, 125.236.143.191 (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we put this on hold? While the previous original version of this article seems to have lacked proper refs & some of the claims are unsupportable this person does seem to be a well-known director in the UK, especially regarding commercials. See this article from The Independent: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/easy-rider-rides-again-1189241.html. Shearonink (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One mere mention, which tells us nothing about the subject, and the subject still isn't notable. Please read WP:REALPROBLEM. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read [An essay] which isn't a guideline or policy or a part of MOS etc. Nothing against essays but they're opinions and in my opinion this person is possibly notable, that's all. If one does a search for "steve mcqueen tv ad ford puma paul street" one gets over 1 million hits. Are they all valid and bolster Street's notability? Of course not, but we are dealing with a person who does not work in a necessarily high-profile part of the entertainment business. He directs commercials in the UK...when the McQueen/Puma ad came out it was very noticeable in its home country and is referred to in McQueen's WP article as a precursor to another Ford ad in 2004. Shearonink (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is evidence that the McQueen advert is notable, but notability is not inheritable. It’s perfectly possible — normal, in fact — for something to be notable but the people who worked on it not to be. Perhaps we should have an article on the commercial. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some citations that link directly 125.236.143.191 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those links are all either only tangentially related, incidental references, or are behind paywalls that hide the content which may, or may not, support notability claims. Even with the additional citations it's tough to establish notability here... If a commercial that he worked on is significant and notable, then maybe it should have its own page, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is notable. nf utvol (talk)

Comment: I think that there is a good discussion to be had here about whether or not commercials could make their director/creator notable. I just don't know if AfD is the right place to have this, given that this is going to need a pretty nuanced take. If we look at it from a short or feature film perspective then coverage for a commercial would count towards notability. However at the same time commercials aren't the same thing as a short or feature film and the advertising and business world is kind of tricky notability-wise because of the sheer amount of non-usable coverage (notability-wise) that gets pumped out. This is why I think this needs to be discussed elsewhere. I don't know if the article would survive but this AfD does bring up some questions that need to be discussed. I suppose I'll start this at WP:NBIO? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started a discussion here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I still maintain that we need to have a discussion about what is needed for a commercial director to achieve notability independent of the commercials. That said, Street does not currently pass any notability guidelines for directors. His feature films are not notable and do not seem to have gained any coverage in places Wikipedia would see as reliable, nor are the awards major enough to give notability. Commercial-wise, I could only find coverage for the Easy Rider commercial and in a situation like this, it would be better to have an article for the singular work as opposed to the director - however offhand I don't see where that is independently notable enough for an article either so it's kind of a moot point. As far as him working with notable people or businesses, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Street working with them - it all boils down to coverage, which is lacking. I couldn't even really find much routine coverage for which business/advertising-related articles are kind of known for getting, which is also kind of telling. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no good sources, I don't think you'll get anyone to agree with you there... SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for notability for Street. My thought process is basically this: Should NFILM or NCREATIVE come into play with commercial directors or should their notability only be judged via NBUSINESS guidelines? I don't think they have the exact same freedom that a feature film director does, but it's also not like they're a cog in an assembly line putting together a product - it does seem like they have some input on the creative process. Also, while a commercial is not the same as a film, what about those cases where a commercial gains a lot of coverage? Let's say that a commercial director creates 2-3 commercials that are notable enough for their own articles? By NFILM and NCREATIVE guidelines that would make them notable enough for their own article, even if the sources for the commercials only really mention them in passing. Again, none of this is going to help this article remain on Wikipedia, but I do think that a more general discussion over commercial directors should take place. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and reads promotionally. The promotional part can be cleaned up, the GNG failure cannot. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above -especially WP:GNG - but also WP:TNT. How this disaster survived into 2024 is a mystery to me. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mileah Kromer[edit]

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

Person does not appear to fulfill WP:PROF notability guidelines (associate professor who is not a named chair, is not highly cited or published, etc.). nf utvol (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do admit the Baltimore Magazine article might be okay depending on whether it is a RS and not considered an interview, but fails WP:GNG and written promotionally. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angolan co-produced films[edit]

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

Unsourced list with no pressing reason to exist. This is a list of just three films, all of which are already also listed in the base List of Angolan films, and even that base list isn't so very long as to need separate sublists at all — so these three films can simply have their status as coprods mentioned in the notes column of the main list, without needing to stand alone as a separate list. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Angola. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already got List of Angolan films. Dympies (talk) 17:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just put them in List of Angolan films with a note in the appropriate column that they are co-produced.nf utvol (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estetik International[edit]

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

Plastic surgery clinic that promotes itself as a "health tourism" destination. The sources in this article, as well as its content, are almost entirely self-promotion, "best of" lists and the like. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Turkey. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spam. Tehonk (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will be a G5 speedy in the end anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bodiadub Tehonk (talk) 20:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional spam, likely paid. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spam.--Kadı Message 17:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Promotional, WP:G11. Aintabli (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bholananda National Vidyalaya[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:NSCHOOL. In a WP:BEFORE search, the best I could come up with was a ranking of the school for their district. The rest is passing mentions, with no significant coverage per WP:GNG. Moved to draft once, then moved back to main space by article creator without improvement. Proposed deletion was contested by article creator. Wikishovel (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page does not satisfy the notability guidelines. The school is ranked as one of the top CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) and there is source to back it but still fails WP:SIGCOV from independent sources. One of the best option would be to merge the school name with source about its ranking to List of schools in West Bengal. RangersRus (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Often I go for a redirect to the education section of the relevant locality but given the problems evident from the article history, I'm not recommending this here. Rupples (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Can't find any tick of notability . Per WP: BEFORE gave only blogs and ranking by unreliable sources. Otuọcha (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teja Oblak[edit]

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

This AfD might be the same issue as with Silke Nowitzki AfD back in June 2023. I knew nothing about basketball-related articles, but am nominating for deletion due to lack of sufficient sources. The closest things related to this woman herself are Ref 1 and Ref 2. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Slovenia. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she is the captain of Slovenian women's national basketball team, among other things. Plenty of coverage from a quick google search, including dedicated interviews on national news MMC. Her brother is a much more famous sportsperson, true, so it is only logical that he is often mentioned in articles covering her. Of course, sourcing in the article needs improvement, but this is not a reason to delete. Tone 15:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you search in Slovenian sources? Haven't gone through them but there seems to be alot of Google hits on her there, not unsurprisingly since she is the captain of the Slovenian national team. Alvaldi (talk) 15:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily enough in-depth coverage in Slovenian media, mainly because of Jan Oblak, but that doesn't matter – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tone, she fulfills GNG criteria, but in foreign sources.--A09|(talk) 22:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 08:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysanthemums for a Bunch of Swine[edit]

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

There are currently three sources in the article: IMDB, a filmography, and a wiki. None of these contribute to notability. My BEFORE check just found more wikis and databases, and Google Scholar only had one result. The articles on other Wikipedias also do not seem to have any helpful sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Italy. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~I’ll improve the page today when I have more time.~~ Added a few things that in my view show it's notable enough for a standalone page. The nominator’s rationale clearly shows that AT LEAST a redirect to Sergio Pastore was warranted anyway. Strongly opposed to deletion .-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure what the nom's search was, but searching a few film texts turns up a number of sources. It's a spaghetti Western, so it is not surprisingly found in books about that topic. I see that additional sources have been added since the nom. I'm sure there are others (what I found already indicates that's the case). The article needs to be expanded, but that's not a reason to delete. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I clearly missed some things when performing my search. The sources now in the article seem to be sufficient, and I withdraw this nomination. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:TOOSOON for its own Article. See this discussion about Future ICC Tournaments' deletion. Current page should be kept as a redirect to ICC Men's T20 World Cup 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Australia, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless there's a really good rationale for putting this article through AfD after it literally survived the previous one _last month_, I call outlandish. Don't know what's changed. Keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 15:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It survived last month. Event is certain to happen. If it was 2032 I might say redirect, but it's only 4 years away. Odd nomination. AA (talk) 16:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's only the host that has been confirmed; not even the format is confirmed it. The ICC has stated that the 2024 format is to be kept but, it is likely that the format could change for 2028 depending on the outcome of the 2024 Tournament. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, WP:CRYSTAL says,

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said at this discussion we can be certain about an ICC Event once the qualification process starts. But, it starts with the previous tournament's top performers. From this we can conclude that the Article about 2028 tournament should be created when we get close to the 2026 tournament. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An Example of this would be what happened to the 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. The event was very certain to happen until, COVID came. We don't know what will happen in 2028; even ICC could change their decisions. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh496 @Blue Square Thing @ MNWiki845 Please leave your thoughts... 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Joseph2302 @Anonsfd37383321 @Cric editor 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article or at last draftify it but no need to delete as the event is certain to happen. MNWiki845 (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idts

Countries have finished the bidding and are scheduled to host the events. The 2020 olympics page also existed before covid.

if a bid has been confirmed by icc then every page till 2031 should infact be made.

example would be 2034 FIFA World Cup Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep already (possibly barely) passes WP:GNG, so I don't see WP:CRYSTAL applying here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't WP:CRYSTAL applies here? 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep there was consensus last month to keep it, people shouldn't just nominate articles again because they disagree with a recent outcome, WP:DRV would be the process to challenge that close. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I was unaware of DRV while starting this AfD. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very confident DRV would not have overturned the last AfD. It only looks at whether the closer made the correct decision based on the consensus of the discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which says "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" – seems to apply here; event is notable, and is almost certain to take place. Even the nominator has admitted that the only previous time a major ICC event didn't happen was due to an unprecedented global pandemic. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 19:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also 2024 Under-19 Cricket World Cup, where hosts were stripped out just 2 months prior to the tournament.
So, we can't be sure about the hosts; not the format either. Only thing we know about the tournament for sure is that it is to take place in 2028. Which is not enough for an encyclopaedic article.
At least draftification is needed here. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manvi#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government First Grade College, Manvi[edit]

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

lack of notability or working links

cannot find any notable information

Cannot find reference to the College in Gulbaga UNiversity website, although it is described online and in this Wikipedia page as being an affiliated college

May have changed its name? Newhaven lad (talk) 11:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manvi#Education, where I've added a note based on the following source about delay in receiving approval for BCA course [22]. Needs more to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.R Mahadeva Sarma S.R Rajasree[edit]

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

Unable to find enough GNG-level sources for this duo. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, India, and Kerala. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Unsourced article. Author is probably connected to the subject WP:OR. A WP:BEFORE search on both together and individually does not bring many results. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found these [23] and [24], but they seem to be interviews. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional, not notable. Likely speedy, as above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 11:50, 29 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 Universal Kids. Known drive-by vandalism by LTA, content is already within Universal Kids article. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sprout (TV channel)[edit]

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

Hey, a removed a redirect from Sprout (TV channel), E2mb7, 29 February 2024, 19:45 (UTC)

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 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Universal Kids: which is exactly what this title was doing literally right up until the nominator simultaneously replaced it with an article and sent it to AfD, without much explanation. (Sprout was the former name for Universal Kids before a 2017 relaunch.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect restored, salting/move protection highly suggested I would NAC this but with XFD Closer currently on the fritz, I'm unable to, but this has been a pernicious problem for oddballs still annoyed that Sprout became UK, and we've had to clear out a draft article at Draft:PBS Kids Sprout from being upped to article space multiple times (unfortunately IPs keep resetting the six-month deletion clock so it's not going anytime soon). Nom is a probable sock of OllieE2b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and should be blocked. Nate • (chatter) 14:53, 29 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!} 07:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reşit Inceoğlu[edit]

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

It appears that this was being curated on the Turkish Wikipedia in the sandbox of the same user just like here, but was nuked before it made its way into the mainspace. Together with the Commons file, I have concerns regarding a conflict of interest.

I don't see any criteria of NPROF this person meets. While no hard limit exists, an h-index of 8 is way too low to pass the guideline: neither is being one of the founders of a department within a faculty sufficient. None of his other academic positions are significant positions (associate professor, department vice dean, professor).

This means that the other way for the subject to be notable is with sources through the GNG, so we need multiple reliable and independent sources covering the person significantly. Majority of the sources are his own publications and are from institutions he has worked for/with. Out of the 11 right now, only 3 are independent. The Hürriyet source from 2002 would be good, but it only has a passing mention of İnceoğlu and a quote of him regarding the surgery, which isn't in-depth coverage about him. Biyografya is just a site that repeats other sources, so while it generally isn't a problem to cite it, it doesn't affect notability. I can't find much about the book cited, it doesn't have an ISBN and I cannot know how much coverage it has. However, the lack of any other sourcing, including other books, leads me to believe it isn't much, and even if it was a lot, it would be the sole source.

There are not enough reliable, independent and significant sources about the subject for it to satisfy the GNG, nor does the person pass the criteria listed in its respective SNG. Styyx (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Turkey. Styyx (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks a lot for the detailed evaluation! I think that he does meet the criteria for notability in academics due to his research and publication of articles with evidence reaching over 750 citations. The real h index is much higher based on the statistics on google scholar. Also he has significant contributions to the medical field by books and research and publications. As well there is no conflict of interest nor is there evidence of one so that is not an issue. Also the subject has received significant media coverage from newspapers because of his impact in the field. Kemaltekin (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a worthy and admirable physician, but not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk).
Speedy delete as A7. Tehonk (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability (according to Wikipedia's criteria). There's possible COI as the creator's most edits up to this point revolve around the subject. Aintabli (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Explicit, I see you have deleted the page under G7 while the AfD was going on. Could you restore it and re-delete if needed with the summary linking here? Otherwise this is basically evading the AfD process. Styyx (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AfD was cut short by a WP:G7 author-requested deletion. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 20, there was no consensus about whether this was appropriate given concerns of gaming the system, and as a result, this AfD is restarted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—Alalch E. 13:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with others about lack of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 09:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lock Yue Chew[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. An associate professor, h-index 21 (Google Scholar). For CV, see the homepage at https://sites.google.com/view/lockyuechew/biography Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Singapore. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged this for notability two years ago after not finding evidence of passing WP:PROF. I think he still does not pass. The citation counts are not high enough (for physics) to convince me of #C1, the awards listed are all too minor to pass #C2, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to have any particular achievements, awards, positions, publications, etc., that set him apart from an average professor in his field. nf utvol (talk) 19:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, no evidence of notability.Ldm1954 (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater|(tαlk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double Bubble Bingo[edit]

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

Promotional, no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, and United Kingdom. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Gamesys as WP:ATD. Agree it is promotional and fails NCORP. Jumpytoo Talk 08:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 08:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Delete and redirect" is not an ATD as it results in the deletion of the article. Would a straight Redirect work?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Gamesys. No indication of notability, and this is purely promotion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:25, 29 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 Harasimowicze. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harasimowicze-Kolonia[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czarnorzeczka‎ in that it is a subunit of Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka that is independent, but has nearly no sourceable information (population, etc.) to speak of. The only difference is that it is a sołectwo and has a sołtys and a council. However, I think this information is better suited for a table on the gmina's page (with the other sołectwa) per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka if as suggested in the nomination it is better linked to a table there. There appears to be little content available to support a separate article. Rupples (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples I have created that table now Gmina Dąbrowa Białostocka#Sołectwa. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the official spelling has no hyphen. Ilawa-Kataka (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harasimowicze, of which this is a part of. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Redirect target articles suggested and we need to get that down to one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Piotrus regarding redirect to Harasimowicze (part of, and local, makes much more sense in terms of any sort of searching). --Ouro (blah blah) 12:02, 29 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 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Middleton (footballer)[edit]

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

Little indication of notability other than a few WP:ROUTINE news articles. He never played above the fifth tier, seems to have been created because a user thought he played in the Premier League. However, this was an error on the Soccerbase website, he did not appear in the alleged 1995 match per the Premier League website and this news article. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-league player after not making it at Villa or Wolves. Went into banking, now running a training academy. That isn't enough for notability. Haven't found any additional sources and what is in the article doesn't meet GNG. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digital motion X-ray[edit]

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

Not sure what else to say after reading this article, except ... WP:TNT applies unless this article can be merged or redirected somewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 06:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite if possible, otherwise delete: I can't help thinking there is something worthwhile hidden (very well hidden!) in here. Somebody who knows the topic needs to go through those references and use them to write an actual article. Failing that, I don't see any point in keeping it as it is...--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator. The subject seems notable [25], the article is not worth keeping. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the content of the article creator's user page, DMX Works (talk · contribs), tells us everything that we need to know. Delete without prejudice to a non-advertisement being written, possibly not even at this title (as all too often these articles tend to be company-invented names for things). Uncle G (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a thinly-veiled ad by a SPA COI. The common name for this technology seems to be Dynamic Digital Radiography. "Digital motion X-ray" may be a trademark owned by the equipment maker for which the author works. Owen× ☎ 22:36, 29 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 06:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dror Bikel[edit]

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

this is slightly promotional, but anyways right now the only sourcing is about a court case with Judith Giuliani and other people and press releases. there's an interview but that doesn't work for sourcing so this fails notability. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Law, Israel, California, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed 109.255.35.74 (talk) 14:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask (as the creator)? Where is the GNG in the Wiki about Nancy Chemtob? MereSavel (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely trying to format this article to meet GNG and have looked at Robert Stephan Cohen as an example and cannot find where the qualifying source is. MereSavel (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you genuinely believe that the Chemtob and Cohen articles both lack qualifying sources and that you can find no others (take a look at WP:BEFORE), feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Ravenswing 21:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question here is: can anyone point out the qualifying source in Nancy Chemtob or Robert Stephan Cohen? I believe there must be a qualifying source and would like to know what that is so that I can highlight my article's qualifying source in a similar fashion. MereSavel (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon what basis do you believe that there are qualifying sources for those articles? Obviously there are any number of articles on Wikipedia that fall short. Tens of thousands of such articles are nominated for deletion from one process or another a year, but with nearly seven million articles, you can understand that some slip through the cracks for years. Sometimes many years. In any event, none of us are likely to analyze articles that are not now up for discussion without some strong reason to do so. All such deletion discussions are taken on their own merits. Ravenswing 10:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep: The content has been revised to include only cited, objective content. The article is encyclopedic as it is a useful resource for individuals training and working in the legal field as well as laypersons who wish to reference the counsel that handled certain publicized cases. MereSavel (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources meet notability requirements as legal commentator

Featured in The New York Times, People, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Inside Edition.

Provided commentary for Inside Edition, Brandi Glanville Unfiltered, Australia's The Briefing podcast, Bloomberg Wealth, Yahoo Finance, Gothamist, Newsmax, New York Post, Law.com, The Art Newspaper, and The Guardian. 174.247.179.180 (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous news sources name this individual. Meets notability as legal commentator

People

MereSavel (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MereSavel, you can only vote once. It would also be helpful if you could use WP:THREE to provide clear sourcing that appropriately supports your vote, thanks. She was ^afairy 02:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The advocacy (and reference bombing) of the article creator notwithstanding, the subject just plain fails notability standards, and meets none of the requirements of the GNG. Being a "legal commentator" satisfies no notability standard, and two dozen casual namedrops, bylines or press releases do no more so than one. I recommend that MereSavel review WP:GNG and WP:BIO going forward for a better understanding of Wikipedia's requirements. Ravenswing 00:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a bad article, though could be cleaned up. The problem is that not one source is about the subject. So it shouldn't be cleaned up. It should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; sources are just mentions of the subject so no SIGCOV. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Cahoon[edit]

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

while attempting to find sources, none other than database entries came up. fails notability i believe. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR with single starring role in syndication, nor WP:GNG. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "Rich Young Actor" and the like roles to not rise to the level of notability for actors. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Historian[edit]

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

3.97m subscribers is impressive but half of the sourcing is youtube, the vulture article is one tiny mention, and i don't think the plagiarism today article qualifies for a wikipedia biography. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw the page requested in the internet culture WikiProject page, so I did it because of that. I think he is notable enough for an article, maybe there just needs to be better sourcing. The plagiarism isn't supposed to be his biography, just a notable thing that happened recently. I tried looking for sources for the guy's biography, but he doesn't seem to be very public about his personal life. But I don't think a lack of personal details means that this isn't notable enough for an article. This channel has an influential presence on internet culture, so I don't see why he wouldn't be qualified, there are other public figures with secretive personal lives that still have articles. Ludensg (talk) 05:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well they do have a lot of subscribers, but that doesn't meet they qualify notability on Wikipedia (WP:BIO). if you can find strong sourcing please link them here and ping me Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to ping, but here are the current references, which I believe do qualify this article on Wikipedia's notability policies.

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

The sources, mainly a Forbes article, Newshub a notable New Zealand news service, and Critical Hit a game journalism website, provide significant coverage, and are independent of each other, and sufficiently reliable. This, without counting the hbomberguy (who is notable enough and also has his own wikipedia page) 17 million views youtube video for which Internet Historian was in part the subject of, and the multiple other sources that, although not exhaustive in coverage, this coverage is still beyond triviality, as Historian was a big part of these stories: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability".

Plus, the fact that Internet Historian's videos all range between 1.5 and 35 million views (with no video below 1.5 million), sufficiently covers notability for both of the requirements for entertainers. Ludensg (talk) 06:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify again, views do not matter. BTW the Forbes article can't be used because it is made by "Senior Contributor". the other sources aren't bad, thank you for adding that, but they don't really talk much about Internet Historian, just a video and some quotes so i still don't think this meets notability. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Password1233210: figured out the pinging btw Ludensg (talk) 06:23, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I needed to figure out the Forbes senior contributor bit, so for others for clarity so much as I understood: Forbes senior contributors are not permanent forbes staff and are external to Forbes itself, and are not considered reliable sourcing for the purpose of Wikipedia. I used this. If this is a wrong understanding of the situation please correct me. --Ouro (blah blah) 09:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added more sources and a reception section. Ludensg (talk) 06:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm happy to strike this if another user does a WP:BEFORE and finds much better WP:SIGCOV on the channel. And firstly, it's awesome that someone put good time and effort into setting up this article and I think that is great and should be salvaged if possible. But unfortunately in its current state, the article's sourcing strikes me as indicating a non-notable subject. As stated above and at WP:NYOUTUBE, views do not matter if WP:SIGCOV has not been provided on the subject; something can be popular and not notable for encyclopedic coverage (see WP:ITSPOPULAR). Sources [1]-[3] are primary sources. Of the remainder, some are articles that in essence just summarise the content of a video ([4],[6]) or provide trivial mentions ([5]). Some of the sources are from reliable outlets. Others are not: Critical Hit is not considered a reliable source under WP:VG/S. At any rate, the way in which the subject is addressed in the sources provides little significant coverage or commentary about the channel itself in contrast to the things that the channel has talked about, which means that it is not really what I would consider 'reception' of the channel. That leaves whether the Plagarism and You(Tube) video by Hbomberguy makes the channel notable, either the video itself ([8]) or the articles about it ([7],[9],[10]). That coverage itself is pretty much just through the lens of the video about trends of plagarism in the video essay community. Whilst the video in question may very well be sustained critical commentary, it's not a reliable source about the subject generally as per WP:YOUTUBE-EL. It's fundamentally a primary source being a publicised opinion about the quality of the channel's research, and that is already handled on the Hbomberguy page. So as I see it, there are no sources that generally provide reliable secondary coverage of the channel as a whole, the creator and their background, and mainstream reception of their work by reliable sources. That suggests it falls short of WP:GNG in lacking significant coverage and well short of WP:ENT in lacking any coverage of their constructive contributions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Vrxces's analysis of the sources in the article already, I couldn't find anything in a WP:BEFORE beyond similar articles that only discuss a single video or the hbomberguy plagarism video, although there may be something that I haven't found. Nothing that would count as passing WP:GNG or WP:ENT Shaws username . talk . 15:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Vrxces. A search of Newsbank database found a single brief mention of the subject in The Santa Fe New Mexican. I can't find sufficient WP:RSs to even produce WP:THREE. Fails WP:BIO. Cabrils (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability guidelines: not enough GNG sources found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Teste[edit]

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

Biography article that, at this point, does not demonstrate how the person being biographed stands out from their peers and, consequently, makes it difficult to understand his/her eventual encyclopedic relevance. In this context, I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Animal, Medicine, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:02, 29 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nemeton TV[edit]

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

I'm not seeing enough coverage in independent sources to meet WP:ORGCRITE. While there's a fair amount of PR for this company floating around (e.g. [26]), significant coverage is scarce. The best examples I was able to find were this writeup of a university course that they sponsor and this article about their GAA coverage acquisition, which despite a promising title turns out to be almost entirely quotes directly from Nemeton's executives. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ireland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, Sports, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe the Nemeton TV is notable, however right not it's too related on primary sources and has lack of independent sources as said before. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research and added significant coverage from The Guardian source, along with some Irish local sources, though they lack significant coverage. Maybe Irish folks could help more. I think the page should be Kept. Johnpaul2030 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are some press releases online, and coverage on industry websites, as you might expect for a television production company that has been in that business for more than 25 years. As well as sponsoring some Royal Television Society Ireland and Scotland award categories, they had a nomination for Live Sport coverage at the RTS Scotland awards 2021. Beyond some of the online sports news articles that mentions Nemeton TV, there is some substantive press coverage which I have added to the article, for example the GAA streaming coverage in Waterford News & Star or the return of Live Action TV and celebrating 25 years both published by the Irish Examiner. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, current sources in the article pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 08:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The FuMP[edit]

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

There does not appear to be any reliable secondary sources or significant coverage outside of a couple brief mentions StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Internet, and Websites. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment https://www.vulture.com/2015/12/2015-the-year-comedy-music-broke.html treats it in more than passing, but less than detail. As noted in the article, they won a Parsec Award twice. And they're still releasing new music, 16 years down the line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No comments since the last two relists. No point relisting again as the community doesn't seem to care if the article is deleted. Keep and redirect !votes are also not seconded in two weeks. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schulze STV[edit]

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

The article in its current form contains several unsubstantiated claims, e.g., about Schulze-STV satisfying Droop-Proportionality or monotonicity. Further, the method is not published in any peer-reviewed work or used by anyone else except for Schulze. As such it does not seem to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikp97 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Schulze STV" is also known as "Schulze proportional". Although the paper "The Schulze Method of Voting" (arXiv:1804.02973) hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal because of its sheer length, it is cited in academic papers and frequently mentioned in discussions because of the Condorcet criterion for multi-winner elections this paper purports. Markus Schulze 11:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkusSchulze: am I right in assuming you are the Markus Schulze who invented the method described in the article? While I am honoured to be in the presence of the mathematician who came up with the polynomial-complexity Schulze method (and to a lesser extent, the exponential-complexity Schulze STV...), you should probably review WP:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles about your work, or participating in discussions about those articles. We value your contribution to Wikipedia, none of which appear to be tainted by bias or self-promotion. However, to maintain neutrality and editorial independence, editors with an apparent conflict of interest must identify themselves as such, and ideally, abstain from editing pages related to themselves or their work. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Single transferable vote: where it is already mentioned. A well written article about this largely impractical voting system, but no notability to support a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this would really be a valid redirect, since Schulze STV is quite different from regular STV. Jannikp97 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many single transferable vote algorithms, and Schulze is one of them, which is why it is listed in that article. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do really think that is true. STV usually refers to a precise family of rules. Schulze STV does not belong to that family, despite its name. Jannikp97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:14, 29 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!} 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puttshack[edit]

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

Not notable. No coverage past PR agencies and routine announcement. Award is not major duffbeerforme (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the page was deleted last week at RfD as it was not found suitable as a redirect to Oakbrook Center. Jay 💬 06:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of press surrounding location openings but nothing that really covers WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Award winning company which can be redirected to Topgolf. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are they related? Topgolf founders are partners in starting Puttshack. Topgolf has only a See also entry for Puttshack currently. Jay 💬 22:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Jay:~~, nothing in WP:NCORP allows for notability simply for winning an award. Are there any references meeting WP:ORGCRIT that you found. Let me know as I may have missed some in my search. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, I think you meant to ping Jax 0677. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Thanks for the courtesy ping. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Forbes article outlines big plans for expansion, but at the moment it seems to be still TOOSOON to be notable.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for clearly failing WP:CORPDEPTH. The only keep vote frankly does not make sense and should be ignored (keep the page as it could be redirected to an unrelated company). --Cavarrone 12:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 20:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump v. United States (2024)[edit]

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

This is part of Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case). Trump was indicted for election obstruction and filed motions to dismiss the indictment on the basis of presidential immunity, now to be decided by the Supreme Court. This is already covered at Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)#Immunity dispute. My redirect to that article was reverted on the incorrect claim that "the cases are different", and I don't see the need for a separate article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 03:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — United States v. Trump has not been appealed to the Supreme Court, only the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decision, thus making Trump v. United States a separate case. If the Supreme Court rules that Trump is not immune from prosecution, United States v. Trump will continue to play out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nearly all SCOTUS cases are standalone notable, and while the details so far of this case are part of the Federal prosecution article, the question of presidential immunity is a self-contained aspect of that, so it is reasonable to have a separate page to cover the SCOTUS case. This should be done by moving the existing content into the SCOTUS page case (along with appropriate attribution), and leaving a summary in place. Alternatively, when the case is ultimately decided, and can be summarized briefly on the prosecution page, then the details can go into the SCOTUS page. Either way, there will eventually be a separate page for the case so deletion makes no sense. --Masem (t) 03:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was this AFD started just a few hours after this article was created? Is there some kind of urgency about it? Quick AFD nomination just seems to happen a lot with article based on news and politics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is opposed to most, if not all page splits. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a page split, it was a single sentence. Was there really some kind of urgency to get this still-mostly-empty page started? You could have at least done what Masem recommends, but instead this page provides no further information. Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was noting your position on page creations, not that I disagree. I typically write articles from the ground up but publish them early in order to avoid any conflicts, furthered by the existence of Trump v. United States, the special master case. Nominating stubs without giving due time is WP:TOOSOON, and I wasn't going to let this article remain a stub. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:03, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Masem said, this is a notable case in the Supreme Court and its widespread precedent on Wikipedia to have standalone articles for cases like this.

Timetorockknowlege (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already seems to pass WP:GNG. Don't really understand the nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only good argument for deletion/draftification I could see here is WP:TOOSOON, but I don't think it's too soon to start this article, given that cert has been granted and there's already significant coverage of the case. Regarding the nominator's point that this is part of the election obstruction case, while true, Supreme Court cases take on a life of their own beyond the individual case, and this article would eventually need to be split from the election obstruction article, so I don't see a point of merging it now. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it's a high-profile pending Supreme Court case. CarpCharacin (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable topic. 103.65.140.93 (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As in there truly isn't one, not "try again in six months". Like all else tied into the events since October 7 and related to the region as a whole, opinions are split. In this case, the bulk of them have policy behind them albeit not necessarily an accurate reading thereof (sourcing does not need to be in English). There is the potential for consensus in the future, but not via another week at AfD. Star Mississippi 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas most wanted playing cards[edit]

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

Non notable and poorly sourced material. Seems like an excuse to make a list. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Israel. Shaws username . talk . 14:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shaws username . talk . 14:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. Only a couple of the sources actually mention the cards - the vast majority of references are about the individual terrorists named and make no mention of the cards. It therefore fails WP:NOTABILITY. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails SIGCOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk)

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely looks like significant coverage to me in those citations. Probably we should have an overall article on cards like these used in various wars. On a side note I was shocked that a deputy director in the ministry of health should be identified as a target to be killed, though I guess less than I should be consideing what has already happened there. NadVolum (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's so many examples of SIGCOV from multiple RS in multiple countries, I'm wondering if a WP:BEFORE was done. [27] [28] (Ynet, Israeli national media outlet in both English and Hebrew), [29] (Jerusalem Post, Israeli national media outlet), [30] (Al Bawaba, Jordan), [31] (Arab World Press, London/Riyadh), [32] (The Messenger, U.S.), [33] (Israel Hayom (Hebrew)), [34] (Skynews Arabia, Arabic), [35] (Al-Arabiya, Saudi), and on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhornsg (talk • contribs) 16:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there two different decks? Those don't all seem to be covering the same deck... From that coverage it appears that there is a government deck and that there is a "Christian cowboy" deck. This page appears to only cover the first so coverage of the second (for example that J-Post article) doesn't count towards the notability of the first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted out the clearly irrelevant material about an alternate deck of cards but editor Longhornsg has editwarred it back in. Closer, kindly take note. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop with the aspersions. It's not WP:EDITWARRING. This article is about decks of cards of Hamas leaders. Alternate versions are of course relevant, as are song covers to the original, and other variations to originals. Besides, it's one source of many. Longhornsg (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is about *a deck* not about decks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article currently has information about two distinct decks of cards featuring depictions of Hamas members. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally five references in the article that aren't directly referencing the death of someone; they're the ones that need to be evaluated when deciding WP:SIGCOV, not the 19 others, referencing that someone was killed. The Messenger source is just reporting on what was in the Ynet article, so there's only four actual sources. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found covering this. Dream Focus 16:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article presents 4 sources, 3 of them in Hebrew and 1 from an unreliable source, the Messenger (a site that shut down after 6 months in operation). Where is AP, Reuters, NYT, BBC etcetera, any kind of serious source? Selfstudier (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Messenger shut down because of business reasons, not the quality of its journalism. A plague that has unfortunately afflicted much of the journalism industry [36], [37], [38]. Additional sources are presented above and are all WP:NEWSORGS. The language of a source does not affect its status as an RS. Would it matter if many of the sources were in Arabic? Of course not. We are not limited to the AP, Reuters, NTY, and the BBC or any other sources. Let's not move the goalposts for what constitutes an RS. Longhornsg (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So it's an "unofficial" deck, why does it need an article? Sourcing barely mentions this "deck" and most are non-RS. Newsweek and the like aren't RS. Seems to be an odd synth of various bits of information, I don't see this as being used in any media. Oaktree b (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment: Multiple independent sources about these decks. Sure, the article could use some more info (who actually made the unofficial IDF deck? could use some more sources about the 12-card deck), but WP:NOTCLEANUP. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC); Edited, Withdrew 'keep' (forgot about WP:SUSTAINED) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This reminds me of the "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" article that was deleted recently. Technically the playing cards have been described in news media (just as the article "Look What We Made Taylor Swift Do" was), but it's a flash in the pan, not WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The majority of the page's 19 sources cover the death of someone depicted in a card but without mentioning the cards. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an easy pass of the GNG. gidonb (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The vast majority of the sourcing here is trivial in the extreme, and the few that do cover it more meaningfully are unimpressive with a view to establishing GNG for this topic as a subject of import for a global encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent and scope of extant sources that cover this article's subject would be helpful in bringing this closer to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sourcing issue has been adequately resolved, and it provides value as a kind of before -after picture of the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What has been resolved about sourcing? Can WP:SUSTAINED be demonstrated? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing / notability is on point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a problem with this article's notability. There is another one with a similar name,Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards that has been on Wikipedia for several years. But maybe it is worth moving this article to "Most-wanted Hamas playing cards" to keep to the same format.--Hazooyi (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is nothing, and the weak coverage shows it. Not SIGCOV, not notable. Zanahary (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctant relist. I don't see a consensus here and when it comes down to a decision, I see editors whose AFD experience I respect on both sides of this discussion. A source analysis would be helpful for whomever reviews this next. Right now, there are plenty of opinions but it comes down to whether or not sources establish notability of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered frequently in Hebrew like in [39]. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing has really changed here, we require significant and sustained coverage in English language sources and we haven't any such thing. Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, significant coverage isn't determined by language. But WP:SUSTAINED coverage in multiple reliable independent sources hasn't been demonstrated in any languages. The link that חוקרת posted is already in the article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, all else being equal, English sources are preferred merely for accessibility reasons, but not required. When push comes to shove, foreign-language sources are just as valid in counting towards reliability or notability, and cannot be disregarded on the basis of language alone. Please see WP:NONENG. Left guide (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, for this particular case, we have a total of 6 sources, 3 of which are in Hebrew (ie Israeli), 1 from the defunct Messenger, 1 from albawaba.com (Jordan) and an irrelevant one from the Jerusalem Post (Israeli) about a different deck of cards, hardly a stellar set of sources. Selfstudier (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That only includes the sources presently in the article; I also see other sources shown in this discussion that should be given fair consideration per WP:NEXIST. Whether a particular source is in or out of the article has no bearing on the topic's notability. Left guide (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asserting that this article is notable based on those sources? Selfstudier (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't reviewed them in-depth, I am simply asserting that any real discussion about the topic's notability needs to address all of the sources available, and not only the ones in the article. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those include 3 already in the article and then 2 more Israeli source, an Arab blog established in 2023, and 2 Arabic sources in Arabic. No sight nor sound of the sort of sourcing we usually see for our articles in this topic area. The whole thing is just Israeli propaganda similar to Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards which at least had a modicum of sourcing but probably should be AfD'd as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, both about this article's non-notability and about the playing cards of Iraqi officers as well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Deublein[edit]

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

did a WP:BEFORE, could only find database entries and minor mentions. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:15, 22 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!} 02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Film and television

DELETE - Non notable, and not necessarily written according to IMBD, the only source listed. He does not appear to have ever been a "star", guest or otherwise. I edited some entries under Film and television, much of which was exaggerated as to how many performances the actor did. Possibility the author Dubliner1 is the actor Dan Deublein, as this article is the only one they ever edited. — Maile (talk) 04:14, 29 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 and Revert‎. I leave it up to interested editors to Watchlist this article and make sure it isn't hijacked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 2024)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lack of independent reliable sources. Almost every source is from either marxist.com, socialist.net, marxist.red or another website affiliated with this group. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United Kingdom, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ almost everything is a source linked to them, and those that aren't are for other groups they're linked to (notability is not inherited). I wasn't able to find anything from a WP:BEFORE to show WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources Shaws username . talk . 14:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaws username This is likely because it's a very new change (which iirc hasn't actually even been implemented yet. I've heard this party will officially form on May 1) Genabab (talk) 18:22, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, I would consider draftifying it as an atd, but given that it was renamed and old content moved I think moving/restoring the old content back so it has it's edit history makes more sense, and then a page can be created for the 2024 RCP if/when it has the coverage for notability Shaws username . talk . 19:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert as Hemmers has decribed below, what's happened has baffled me slightly. Shaws username . talk . 19:10, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m glad it’s not just me that’s baffled. I started off on “delete”, and then rewrote my reply twice as I dug through the edit history and became increasingly bemused! Hemmers (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very few sources not linked to the party, no demonstration of notability. AnOpenBook (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sort of. But revert to 17 December 2023, when it was actually a moderately well-sourced article about a long-standing publication/movement (the Socialist Appeal). Then merge the latest edit of Socialist Appeal (Britain) back on top of it and delete that article. Then move the entire stack (with edit history) back to Socialist Appeal (Britain) where it belongs. I'm at an absolute loss as to what the blazing nonsense has gone on with this article. They've moved a long-standing article, blanked it and rebranded it, and then someone's copied the old content into a new article using the old name!?! A quick hunt back through the History shows it is notable - they've just removed all the references to the former name, instead of creating a new article for the new name/body (which likely wouldn't pass NPP). Failing all that, Delete, it's just a shame to lose the edit history for Socialist Appeal (Britain), which is currently underneath this article. Hemmers (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur. My feeling is that member(s) of the party and/or its international affiliates have done what you describe above for appearances, namely to give the impression that this is a new party with a fresh face rather than simply a rebrand. It makes more sense to have just renamed the old Socialist Appeal article. The pretext for a new article is that this is a merger of two parties and thus a new organisation. This is something of a pretense since there's no real reason to think there were separate English and Scottish parties that have merged rather than just one organisation which had a Scottish and English newspaper (especially as the IMT has always opposed Scottish independence). Even if this is the merger of separate Scottish and English organisations (which is a supposition rather than a sourced claim) they were two sections of the same international organisation so it wouldn't really be a merger as much as a reorganisation. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Restore old version per Hemmers Abo Yemen ✉ 13:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore previous version as per Hemmers. Suonii180 (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Socialist Appeal: The separation into two articles looks to have been the work of a now banned single-purpose sockpuppet account. I think the heart of the problem here is that this article is preceding the establishment of the group itself (which isn't until May). The situation isn't helped by the frankly deliberate obfuscation by the organisations involved (which seems to be for the sole reason of hiding their numbers so you think it's more than two blokes in a shed) so we don't know if it's a merger/rebrand. Quite honestly I think there needs to be a real reconsideration of the notability of a lot of International Marxist Tendency related pages as they appear to be overwhelmingly reliant on their own webpages (of which they run several, also seemingly a deliberate attempt at obfuscation). Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per comment on the discussion page for merging the socialist appeal page with this one: Socialist Appeal was an entryist group within the Labour party, synonymous with the newspaper of the same name.

the RCP is an open political party with a noticeably different political identity. the two groups employ different methods.

The Revolutionary Communist Party will also see the merging together of the forces previously organised around the paper Revolution Scotland (revolution.scot) and the forces previously around SA. it's a different entity.

the content of the two pages is also different. one deals thoroughly with the history of the Militant split etc, whereas this one is mostly about the party's very recent history.

I think a merger of the pages will only confuse people. @Tedgrant1917 Hewer7 (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any reliable sources and the lack of independent sources there simply isn't enough to justify a separate article on the RCP. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 albums into the parent article Women & Songs‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women & Songs[edit]

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

(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)

Set of almost completely unreferenced articles about a compilation album series. To be fair, they were largely created at a time when Wikipedia's approach to the notability of albums tended toward completionist directoryism -- as long as a compilation album had notable artists on it and was verifiable as existing, it was considered "inherently" notable regardless of sourcing issues. But that's long since been kiboshed, and now compilation albums are notable only if they can be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
These, however, are all virtually unsourced: I just now added one reference to the series overview article to get it out of the "unreferenced since 2009" bucket, while each of the individual albums is "referenced" solely to an AllMusic directory entry -- but to the extent that AllMusic helps to support notability, it doesn't hinge on the album having an AllMusic entry per se, it hinges on whether that entry contains a written review of the album by one of AllMusic's professional music critics, which absolutely none of them do. And even on a ProQuest search for at-the-time coverage, I found a couple of short CD reviews for one or two of the earliest albums, but mostly I just found glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of individual artists who had placed songs on one of them, which doesn't help.
So I just haven't been able to find anything like enough coverage to salvage all of these -- and even if somebody else can find more coverage than I did somewhere else, it would still be far from clear that we would need 18 separate articles here instead of just one omnibus article about the series as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 01:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to the one overarching series article. There's possibly enough to support an article on the series, but not the individual compilations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to a "Woman and Songs" article about the collection (which does not yet exist). A bit of coverage overall [40] and a book listing [41]. Gbooks above has several scans of Billboard magazine over the years that talk about these albums. Oaktree b (talk) 02:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - That "article about the collection" as hypothesized by the last voter already exists at Women & Songs, which is the first item at the top of the nominator's list. Various albums in the series got reviews that may or may not describe the series as a whole, and those can be used for content to beef up that series article. Redirect all of the individual albums to there. (Off-topic: Whoever designed those album covers should be fired.) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:57, 29 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!} 01:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Muli[edit]

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

No credible claim of significance so imo it was an A7 but we're here anyway. The sources I find were rather sensationalist, fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST as far as I can see. Tehonk (talk) 01:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find gossip/tabloid stuff about her, mostly about her looks, about how her ex has a new partner or a combination of both. [42], [43] Oaktree b (talk) 02:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 29 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. Procedural Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers[edit]

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

Completely minor and irrelevant parties that never won a seat, got more than 100 votes, or participated in more than 1 election. Yilku1 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yilku1 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD is flawed, as there are several errors in the deletion rationale:

The claim made that the parties listed did not take part in more than one elections is wrong as two of the parties listed did contest more than one election (Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers and United People's Party).
The claim made that the parties listed never received more than 100 votes is wrong – all but two of them received over 100 votes in an election: The People's Political Movement received 1,346 votes (11% of the national total), the Saint Kitts Democratic Party 905 votes (9% of the national total), the United People's Party 605 votes and the United National Empowerment Party 263 votes.
The claim made that the parties listed as "minor and irrelevant" is wrong as the People's Political Movement was the second-most voted for party in the 1961 elections, while the Saint Kitts Democratic Party was the second-most voted for party in the 1957 elections.

I'm not opposed to the Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers, Progressive Liberal Party, United National Empowerment Party or United People's Party articles being deleted as they were very minor, but the People's Political Movement and Saint Kitts Democratic Party were clearly significant parties at the time of the elections in question. Number 5 7 08:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep per Number 57. These deserve individual source searches. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 29 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 WP:G5ed because it's been created by a LTA Liamb2011 (talk · contribs)‎. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Wiley Cash Sr.[edit]

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

The only claim to notability is that his son is famous Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and North Carolina. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the two obituaries are all I can find. Being a pharmacist alone and the father of a famous person doesn't get you a wikipedia article. Not meeting any sort of notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 02:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the son doesn't look that notable either, he had a number one album on Apple music charts, which doesn't get him at notability requirements here either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 29 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!} 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edenspiekermann[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable organization, sourcing does not appear to exist. Article creator was a WP:SPA – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Social media pieces, PR items, are about all I find. Tagged for notability issues for almost 15 yrs, if nothing has turned up in that time, there likely isn't anything. Happy to revisit if we find something. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Advertising, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find anything reliable. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: - what about the "further reading" section - some of those refs are paper. Are they not valid? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on their titles, as I have not read them, they don't look to be coverage of the company, but rather relevant to the industry. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking them up on Google Books they just appear to be about graphic design or logo design in general, also the first one is an autobiography of the founder of the company. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are nothing but press releases. Fails WP:NCORP. GTrang (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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