< January 24 January 26 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× 02:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AviaAM Leasing[edit]

AviaAM Leasing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Not a single ref passes WP:SIRS. Before is a similar message. scope_creepTalk 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage would that be exactly? I've already a pretty comprehensive WP:BEFORE and I didn't see much at all. Have you got three per WP:THREE that can prove its notable. scope_creepTalk 19:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP THREE is an essay, not a rule/guideline. BoraVoro (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE was cofirmed as best practice per consensus last summer. If you have evidence post it up. I don't think you do. I do think your a UPE though. scope_creepTalk 09:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please send me that discussion, I would be glad to see it. I recently found out, that essays are not good way to discuss, that's why I do not rely on them. Also, don't blame in UPE me, it's not nice :) but I do see why you think so, as I am not for Deletion. You wanna change my mind? :) I may change the vote, but don't want to mess around with KeepDelete. However, I do agree with the decision to delete the page - I did research more to prove my claim and found very little (regarding reliable sources). BoraVoro (talk) 10:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Weak Delete - agree with @Scope creep and don't object WP:THREE rule to be applied here. BoraVoro (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× 02:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Sutherland District Council election[edit]

1974 Sutherland District Council election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The election is not notable and is of negligible importance.

Simply does not pass WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional sources, background information and ward results to try and help move this discussion forward. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Islands–Turkey relations[edit]

Marshall Islands–Turkey relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. There is hardly anything to these relations: no trade, agreements or embassies. The 2 high level visits were part of multilateral forums. The MV Maersk Tigris incident is covered in its own article. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 14:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapstrap[edit]

Rapstrap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article creator. I have no objections to deleting this article. Triwbe (talk) 10:49, 19 January 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, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pater Sparrow[edit]

Pater Sparrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 14:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Financial Manager[edit]

Certified Financial Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CRUMBS[edit]

CRUMBS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. plicit 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rory O'Connor (filmmaker)[edit]

Rory O'Connor (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MATA bus fleet[edit]

MATA bus fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST - I cannot find reliable sources that discuss the agency's bus fleet as a whole, merely run-of-the-mill coverage of individual types entering service. The vast majority of information here is uncited, and several of the citations are self-published sources. A substantially condensed and properly cited list of current fleet would be appropriate at Memphis Area Transit Authority, but Wikipedia is not a database of unsourced trivia about all-time fleets. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woolly Farms[edit]

Woolly Farms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing proving notability. Seawolf35 T--C 23:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Ali Nasayyif[edit]

Hussain Ali Nasayyif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ZERO SIGCOV found. All sources present in the article as well as from Google, the NYT, AP, JSTOR, and TWL bring up no significant coverage. Though he did meet NATH, such SIGCOV is unable to be found – calling it a GNG fail. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added the subject's native names to the article. It looks like there are SIGCOV matches in the Al-Riyadih newspaper archive, for example see p. 22 here has exact match for his Arabic name Arabic: حسين علي نصيف. This demonstrates significant coverage in durable media, meeting WP:SPORTCRIT. --Habst (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks my "share" link did not go to the proper edition of the newspaper, a more precise link with the name highlighted is here. It has his full name in prose surrounded by athletics imagery, during the time when he was most active. --Habst (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a routine recap of Islamic Sports Championship results for multiple athletes and events. The start of that section says The context matches resulted in the following results, which we list here:. The one sentence mentioning him just notes that he was first in the 500-meter race and Fahim Abdel Sada was second; every other sentence in that list has the same format (e.g. "سياق ١١١‏ متر مواتع الاول حبار رحيمه والوقت /ار5١‏ ثانية والثاني زهير جبر والوقت كن؟١‏" is Context: 111 meters. The first is Hibar Rahima and the time is 51 seconds. The second is Zuhair Jabr and the time was...) This is not SIGCOV. @BeanieFan11 JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your research. Could you please share your source for the translation, or say if it was translated by you? I tried to machine translate the article, but I could not do it because of the OCR. The fact that Ali Nasayyif ran a 500 metres race is interesting to me, as that distance is quite rare in athletics especially outdoors. It may also be another avenue for SIGCOV research. I'm also not sure what "111 metres" means in this context, but it may not be related to Nasayyif. --Habst (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can copy the text surrounding a hit and paste it into Google Translate. I just searched that page for all mentions of "الاول" ("first" as in "first place"), which I noticed was in every sentence. Non-standard distances are common in domestic tournaments, athletes will just run whichever distance is closest to their "usual" when competing internationally, it's nothing interesting. The 111 meters quote does not mention Nasayyif, it's just an example of the trivial coverage each of those results bits contains. I used it because the translation was slightly better. The one for Nasayyif says The first 500 MT race is Hussein Ali Nassif, and the time is for rent a second, and the second is Fahim Abdel Sada, and the time is for rent for a second. Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you. The copying isn't working at all for me, maybe it is just my browser but when I try to select text it keeps selecting text from other sections, it seems like the OCR program doesn't understand the flow of Arabic text. But when I search for just his last name حسين, I get 5 hits on page 22 alone. Is it possible he is discussed elsewhere in the article, but only addressed by last name as would be common once he is already introduced? It might be helpful to look for pronouns "he" / "him" if they are applicable in Arabic as well. --Habst (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me that maybe حسين is actually the subject's first name, because Arabic is read right to left. So maybe he is addressed by that name, or maybe by pronouns. Also, considering as Iraq only sent six sprinters to the 1980 Olympics, one would expect that if even "domestic tournaments" are covered, then surely the Olympics would merit coverage from this publication, so we should search the archives from those dates. It would be helpful to have the entire article translated as well just to be sure. --Habst (talk) 19:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"حسين" is just "Hussein", one of the most common given names in the world. Of course there will be more hits for that name in an Arabic newspaper... Are you selecting text from the "search inside" result snippets, or from the document itself? JoelleJay (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. I think that just because a subject uses a common name, does not mean that there should be a bias against their inclusion in the encyclopedia (even if that bias is not a conscious one, but one based on the mechanics of the searching process).
I was trying to select from the document itself, if I select text from "search inside" then the only phrase I can see is the one you mentioned above, though Google translates mine with a different meaning There are 500 left, the first is Hussein Ali Nassif, and time is for rent again, and the second is Fahim Abdul Sada, and time is for rent again. --Habst (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really arguing that we should presume SIGCOV might exist, contra explicit P&Gs, on the basis that you expect any of those hits for "Hussein" elsewhere in the newspaper to be for Nassif, despite no evidence that Arabic uses a first name alone as the sole and introductory referent when a last name exists, and despite the incredibly obvious problems that would present for name-sparse cultures in particular?
You have to search for other words that appear in those entries...like the one I mentioned. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your challenge because it helps find sources for the article. I'm saying that athletes with common names deserve extra scrutiny when looking for sources, especially when they are already proven to have met WP:NATH as Ali Nasayyif does, which means that (quoting NATH), Significant coverage is likely to exist. This is following the guideline. One lead we have is we know that this Arabic Al-Riyadih publication thinks that even small domestic athletics tournaments are worth covering, including Ali Nasayyif. If that is true, then surely the Olympics / Asian games (where the subject won a medal) and the Iranian athletes there would be covered in great detail. Given that we know significant coverage is likely via NATH, a more thorough investigation is needed that would require checking the Al-Riyadih archives from those dates. --Habst (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained in countless other AfDs, SPORTCRIT #5 requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article, regardless of particulars like nationality, time period, "having a common first name", etc. That coverage is "likely to exist" according to NATH does not override this requirement and does not obligate us to assume coverage exists or to go beyond a standard BEFORE. The whole reason we got rid of the presumptions of notability in NSPORT in the first place was because these criteria turned out to be terrible predictors of GNG, even for contemporary athletes in English-speaking countries. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did search for Olympics coverage in Al-Riyadh and elsewhere and could not find mention of Nassif. We have the name that particular newspaper uses for him, we have its Olympics coverage of the days on which he competed archived, and we still didn't get any hits. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. As I explain in Special:Diff/1198405835, that section of SPORTCRIT is plainly contradictory to the rest of the guideline, and SPORTCRIT does not override the "likely to exist" statements.
Putting aside SPORTCRIT and NATH entirely, just think about the particulars of this case. We know that Ali Nasayyif competed in two events in athletics at the Olympics, which is the marquee event at the Olympics. We know that Ali Nasayyif is a continental medal-winner as he won silver at the Asian Games (which is the most prestigious athletics competition in Asia). We also know that his races were so important that even a small domestic tournament merited coverage from Al Riyadh, a dominant paper in the geographic center of Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that the subject is not even Saudi Arabian. All of these facts combined lean towards signifcant coverage being significantly likely to exist, barring a Library of Alexandria-burning situation.
@JoelleJay, if you searched for Olympics coverage in Al-Riyadh, can you please link the Olympics coverage from the webarchive, so we can search for the subject inside? I don't see how we can say that the subject is not covered in Al-Riyadh if we have not even looked at their Olympic coverage – which they have certainly done as even domestic athletics competitions have merited articles. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "likely to exist" statements were added after the RfC, to comply with the results of that RfC which said no criteria could "presume notability" anymore. This does not mean a subject for whom old criteria claim coverage is "likely to exist" does not still need to have IRS SIGCOV cited in their article.
The July 14 coverage is also of some Islamic sports tournament, not something from a single country.
Why do you think there would be any coverage whatsoever in Al Riyadh of non-Saudi athletes who barely made it to the quarterfinals? We have the newspaper edition from July 28 when the quarterfinals were held and they don't even mention the race. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response. I don't think that no criteria could "presume notability" is a consistent position with some criteria can mean that sources are likely to exist in the context of Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, the criteria claiming that coverage is likely to exist for the subject is not old, it is current, as his Asian Games medal meets NATH regardless of any presumed notability for Olympians.
I said that the 14 July competition was domestic because I can't translate the article and I was going off what you said about it, Non-standard distances are common in domestic tournaments. If it was an Islamic sports tournament encompassing multiple countries, that could mean there is a possibility that more in-depth coverage of this competition exists. Given that we know the subject's name حسين (Hussein) appears 5 times on that page, even if one or two of the matches are for someone else who shares his name, I think it is worth looking into all the matches.
As they did in the 14 July article, I think that Al Riyadh might find it in their interest to cover athletes who their readers are familiar with, like the subject who we know was covered at least once by the paper. I wonder if we would have more luck with the 29 July edition, as I would expect the coverage to be delayed by at least a day given how newspapers are typically published. --Habst (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per lack of SIGCOV as detailed above.
JoelleJay (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent sources. Sources are all routine game reports where the subject is mentioned briefly, not enough to meet the WP:GNG. Just because the name is common doesn't give the subject a pass from the notability guidelines. A BEFORE check didn't come up with much more than trivial mentions. Let'srun (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, thank you for responding. I thought about our sources and took another look at the Al-Riyadh article snippet.
I am re-reading my translation and I see, There are 500 left, the first is Hussein Ali Nassif, and time is for rent again, and the second is Fahim Abdul Sada, and time is for rent again. Because 500 metres outdoor competitions are extremely rare in athletics, I would be more inclined to say that this is only describing the end of a race, i.e. the last 500 metres of an 800 m – implying that we haven't even translated coverage of the rest. I think there is no way that we can say that the mentions are only brief, when we have not even translated the entire article or the Olympic/Asian Games coverage of Al-Riyadh. What do you think?
P.S. I think I have mentioned this before, but I am curious about the origins of your Wikipedia username if you don't mind sharing. --Habst (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
........are you trolling us now? This is an article that describes itself as a list of results. It indeed provides a list of results in the format of "event, first place performance, second place performance", which would be exceedingly obvious if you actually performed the search for "الاول" I suggested to you earlier. You think an article with 16 paragraph-separated single sentences, each containing the word "first", is providing any SIGCOV?
And I don't know what translation tool you're using for سباق 5٠٠‏ متو الاول حسين على نصيف والزمن كراء ثانية والثاتي فاهم عبد السادة والزمن رلاء ثانية but Google says it's The first 500 MT race is Hussein Ali Nassif, and the time is for rent a second, and the second is Fahim Abdel Sada, and the time is for rent for a second. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source eval:
Comments Source
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV 1. Hussain Ali Nasayyif at Tilastopaja (registration required)
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV 2. ^ "The Guardian". 29 July 1980.
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV 3. ^ Evans, Hilary; Gjerde, Arild; Heijmans, Jeroen; Mallon, Bill; et al. "Hussain Ali Nasayyif Olympic Results". Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC. Archived from the original on 18 April 2020. Retrieved 3 August 2017.
Name listed in match result, nothing SIGCOV 4. ^ Asian Games Results. GBR Athletics. Retrieved on 2014-10-04.
Habst point has been accurately rebutted effectively by JoelleJay; other keep votes have provided nothing. BLPs require strong sourcing; if there were three sources with SIGCOV, all the words above would be unneeded.  // Timothy :: talk  16:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. plicit 23:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Guminsky[edit]

Brett Guminsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is an American college football coach who was recently named to his first head coaching position, albeit at the NAIA level. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, neither on Google nor Newspapers.com. JTtheOG (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEDD-LD[edit]

KEDD-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hammond[edit]

Alex Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Successful career, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a close call, but I find the arguments of those advocating deletion to be more substantial and persuasive, particularly the in-depth analysis from Timothy that went unchallenged. As an aside, the back and forth discussion between some editors in the debate wasn't helpful. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Myles[edit]

Peter Myles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the "Google test". Had a previous no-consensus AfD 13 or 14 years prior. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of the veracity of the award givers, it's a question of how an award can be notable at all if it isn't one that gets any third-party media coverage reporting its award presentations as news. If all you had to do to make a person "notable because award" was source it to content self-published by the presenters of said award, then we'd have to start keeping articles about high school valedictorians and people who won employee of the month at fast-food franchises — so it isn't a matter of whether or not we can locate just any verification whatsoever that the award claim is technically true, it's a matter of whether or not we can locate evidence that the media consider said award to be important enough to independently report as news. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Golden Reel Award is notable enough that we've got an article on Golden Reel Awards 2022, which was hosted by Patton Oswalt and included Tom Cruise as a presenter. It looks to me like this is more than an employee of the month. Toughpigs (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not until you can source the claim that he won one to some evidence of third party coverage about the 2017 awards, it's not. The extent to which it counts as a notability claim is strictly coterminous with the reliability and independent thirdpartyness of the specific source you use to specifically footnote his own personal victories and/or nominations, and has absolutely nothing to do with who hosted or presented awards in a different year than the one you're trying to render into a notability claim. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this or this, or this or this correspond to what you have in mind? Other coverage of that type exists. Please don't ask me for sources proving the notability of the sources that show the notability of the sources (:D), thank you in advance. As for the notability of the GRA, I've added a few sources to the MPSE page, in case anyone should doubt they are an important award. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Bearcat and I aren't asking for proof that the sources are notable, we're asking for sources to prove the award itself is noted by other people to determine if Myles is noted by the nomination by said awards. Truthfully, this sort of scrutiny needs to be done for any article on a living person.
While the sources you provided might prove the notability of the awards, they don't significantly mention Myles, and notability isn't inherited; are there any sources at all that's not a press release where Myles is significantly mentioned (talked about for at least an entire paragraph) that's not a press release or interview? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken but I don't think that Bearcat and you were asking the same thing. Still this reply is to your last comment and it's the following: The sources I provided here do not mean to prove the notability of the award. They prove Myles received the awards and nominations. If anyone doubts the award is notable, let them see the article about the MPSE, where I have added sources (not that they were totally needed). But to make sure I understand: you do now agree that he actually received the awards and nominations? and that they are important? If so, you will agree that he does meet one of the inclusionary requirements for notability then, won't you? What does this have to do with "inherited notabilty"? (!) As for one paragraph or more about him (in order for him to meet also the general requirements), does this or this (signed) (or this type of coverage) satisfy you or will you find it is not independent enough, as being the introduction to an interview/event? Even if that should be the case, I'm afraid that I will leave it at that, if I may. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it. Notability is never a question of what the article says, and always a question of how well the article does or doesn't reference the things it says to media. So you can take the snark you directed at me and point it at somebody who actually has some flying honks to give about it, because nobody is ever notable for winning an award that isn't being sourced properly — so if you want to claim that a person is notable because award, the onus is on you to show the correct kind of sourcing to make that notable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had not only submitted 4 links to your assessment here but also added sources to the page about the award but apparently you didn't read that part of my reply nor check the MPSE page but rather decided that my joke about sources deserved your wrath and contempt. I didn't except your gratitude and thanks for providing the sources you requested, but still, I am not particularly impressed by your sense of humour, to be totally honest with you. Anyway, again, and especially given the tone and content of your last reply, I'll leave it at that. Thank you for sharing your opinion about notability. The awards and nominations were received, the awards are important, sources tend to prove it; now, what Wikipedia does of this is another thing, and what your personal views about this are, yet another one. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Whether or not you like the tonality of Bearcats' comment, he is correct when he say Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it. I don't see any joking around in the comment; then again, tonality isn't conveyed well (if at all!) in texg. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I suppose, when you say tonality isn't conveyed well (if at all!) in texg and that can indeed be a cause of problems and misunderstanding. But indeed I don't care very much for the quite unambiguous tone of Bearcat's comment, especially because it's a reply to a post where I presented sources that they requested. I did spent quite some time looking for and presenting sources you and Bearcat requested. They show, in my view, that the award/nominations were received by Myles (see here and the article), and, on the MPSE article, that this is an important award. I have the feeling that I am repeating myself and perhaps that you are not reading the sources you are requesting, to tell the truth.
Indeed when you mention that Literally by definition, a person can only be notable for winning award that is itself notable, and cannot be notable for winning an award that is not itself notable — so in order to make a person "notable because award", it is necessary not only to verify that the award was received, but that the award itself is a notable one for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it., that is obviously correct, sure, but I thought that the sources presented were precisely addressing this very issue (veracity of the award, significance of the award) and, on top of this, all of this seems already contained in a more concise way in the quotation in bold of ANYBIO, above, in my opinion, but no harm in rephrasing it, certainly.
You don't see "joking around" in whose comments? Mine? May I quote myself then? (I'll do it in red, not green because it's not someone else I quote) Please don't ask me for sources proving the notability of the sources that show the notability of the sources (:D), thank you in advance."(it has a laughing face in it, emphasis mine) was intended as a joke. I suppose that was perceived as snark but even then, reading the rest of the comment (and the sources it contained, and referred to, on another page) would have, I think, made the general spirit/intended tone clear (or clearer).
Now, if you would excuse me, I really have no further comment to add to this conversation. If you haven't, please kindly read the various sources I provided 1) here, 2) on the page and 3) on the award page. As much as I am interested in general discussions about the concept of notability on Wikipedia and in real life, I think the main focus here should be on whether Myles is notable or not. I've asked simple questions in my latest comments and received no direct answers (neither from Bearcat nor from you). You requested sources, I did my best to provide them at three different venues. If you still think it's not enough, my time was spent in vain, that's too bad but there's nothing much I can do about it. If you think they address the issue, I'm glad to hear it. Again, thank you for time and replies. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 04:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source eval:
Comments Source
Name listed with other noms, "Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing meeting SIGCOV 1. Neglia, Matt (2022-01-24). "The 2021 Motion Picture Sound Editors (MPSE) Golden Reel Award Nominations". Next Best Picture. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
Named in list, "Supervising Music Editors: Clint Bennett, Ryan Rubin Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing SIGCOV 2. ^ "Motion Picture Sound Editors Awards: Full 2022 Nominees". headlinermagazine.net. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
Name in database table, nothing meeting SIGCOV 3. ^ "Top Grossing Music Editor at the Worldwide Box Office". The Numbers. Retrieved 2024-01-25.
From above
Interview, fails WP:IS https://www.interlochenpublicradio.org/classical-music/2021-04-10/icymi-film-music-editor-peter-myles-in-conversation-with-classical-ipr
Name in list, "Music Editors: Michael Bauer, Peter Myles", nothing meeting SIGCOV https://soundandpicture.com/2017/02/64th-annual-mpse-golden-reel-awards-winners-announced/
Name mention in list "Music Editor: Peter Myles", nothing meets SIGCOV https://deadline.com/2022/01/golden-reel-awards-2022-nominations-motion-picture-sound-editors-1234918482/
Stopped reviewing the above keep refs, they are just more of the same, it is obvious this is just ref spamming award nominations and name mentions and its nothing but a timesink, eg: "Music Editor: Peter Myles", is obviously not SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  15:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hittman[edit]

Hittman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC due to no charting discography and lack of viable third-party coverage. Biggest claim to fame was coattailing more notable artists on Aftermath. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St David's Prep[edit]

St David's Prep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a school, and added some references, but do not think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. The references are all primary, brief mentions, or self-published. I did find an article in the local paper about a school concert in 1935, but although this is a non-trivial mention of the school it is routine and run-of-the-mill information. There are or have been at least four other schools called St David's Preparatory, in Huddersfield, Didsbury, Naas and Farnborough, which makes searching more difficult. Tacyarg (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD[edit]

WBNM-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find the requisite significant coverage for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. [[2]] probably qualifies, but one source isn't enough. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gliere[edit]

Jennifer Gliere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted on 31 May 2023 following an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Gliere). It still fails to show notability, and searches don't find anything beyond what was there in May. The only reference is the subject's own we site. Gronk Oz (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:NMUSIC with no viable independent coverage. Article is also purely promotional if the only source cited therein wasn't enough of an indication. Her infobox consists of one whole word. External links (since removed) had zero connection to the subject, and then the nonsense content about prized possessions. Should probably be salted since article was recreated following first clear delete consensus. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jamaican books[edit]

List of Jamaican books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Superseded by Category:Jamaican books for "books by Jamaicans". "List of books about Jamaicans" doesn't seem to have a category, but we do have Category:Books about Jamaica and Category:Jamaican novels, which presumably covers any of those books.

I don't think this list makes sense to keep (topic is too broad, containing both books about and by Jamaicans), but it could be split, if there's consensus for that. At least some of these are spam entries though (lulu.com books, etc). asilvering (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted by Bbb23 per G5. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to make Arabic as the state language of Pakistan[edit]

Proposal to make Arabic as the state language of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a Bengali LTA, see log (Special:Contributions/202.134.13.132). Not sure why it was moved to main namespace, we should not encourage LTA. This version is exactly same as previously deleted version by User:Bbb23 & User:Izno (log). Also, previously User:Bilorv declined the article (see User_talk:103.67.156.64#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_Proposal_to_make_Arabic_as_the_state_language_of_Pakistan_(December_23)).

Anyway, this is a WP:OR article. There was some talk but that's it, this wasn't' any sort of official proposals or any historical movement etc. Other than some mentions, i don't see any WP:SIGCOV. At best, article should be merge with Languages of Pakistan#Arabic. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous (adjective)[edit]

Ubiquitous (adjective) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear WP:DICDEF. The examples in the "article" are copied directly from wikt:ubiquitous. This could, I suppose, be soft redirected to Wiktionary, but deletion seems better to me. Deor (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually the other way around:
I was compliant to the recommendation of this being directed to Wiktionary, as one option, and wrote the quotes section for wikt:ubiquitous, in case that becomes the decided option.Starlighsky (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]

Here is the lede for omnipresence:

Omnipresence (redirect from Ubiquity (ability)) Omnipresence or ubiquity is the property of being present anywhere and everywhere. The term omnipresence is most often used in a religious context... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talkcontribs) 02:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesnar–Reigns rivalry[edit]

Lesnar–Reigns rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like fan wiki article with the storyline parts from both wrestlers merged here. No actual recognition of the rivalry itself by reliable secondary sources. Also, one of the main facts that these two have starred the most together at Mania main event is factually incorrect, Austin-Rock is another to main event thrice. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that this is a niche fan wiki. Winditaround (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mamath Eka Malak[edit]

Mamath Eka Malak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be notable. Got a flutter of mentions in 2014, but not WP:SIGCOV. PepperBeast (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DX Studio. The appropriate WP:ATD under these circumstances. DX Studio is also up for deletion, although with an unclear outcome as of this writing. Sandstein 08:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worldweaver[edit]

Worldweaver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:GNG. I am unable to identify any reliable source about the company or its product (e.g. DX Studio). OceanHok (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DX Studio. IgelRM (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shenandoah County, Virginia. There is rough consensus against keeping the article, and the redirect target mentions the topic. Whether and what to say about the Senedos there, given the discussion below about the unreliability of available sources, is a content matter to be resolved by further discussion on the target article talk page. Sandstein 08:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senedo people[edit]

Senedo people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no information about this group of people exists. Hodge includes one 1882 mention of them in his Handbook of North Americans North of Mexico but says that, "The statement is of doubtful authenticity." No further information can be added to this article. Yuchitown (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

- There were at least two accounts of Native people who claimed their entire nation was decimated in the 17th century
He further extrapolates:
- They lived along the North Fork Shenandoah prior to the 17th century
- In the 17th century, there was a massacre which killed all but at least 2
- There is a possible mass grave attributed to them in that area
The other main source is the 1882 book The History of Augusta County, which claims:
-The name Shenandoah means "beautiful daughter of the stars,"
-They lived on the North Fork Shenandoah until they were massacred (likely from Kercheval,1850).
As discussed, the authenticity of this claim, and thus Kercheval's original, were dismissed as doubtful by Hodge. There is, from what I can tell, no other credible source which mentions the Senedo, not stemming from Kercheval. So, what we have, is a tribe which is mentioned in one source which has been dismissed by an anthropologist. I don't think this merits any real mention in an article, much less an entire article. PersusjCP (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, you've found two sources, plus further sources discussing those two sources. That sounds like it passes GNG and that there should be an article on WP about this, which would include the judgements of Hodge and others about the historicity of the people. Furius (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is one main source, in which it is just a few paragraphs worth of information. Blogs and other websites aren't reliable sources. The other reliable source, Peyton is just a summary of the first with no analysis, and is not very useful. The only other source is Hodge, who claims the original claim (through Peyton) is doubtful.
Looking at WP:GNG, it does not have "significant coverage" in the secondary sources. In Hodge and Peyton, it is a trivial mention. In Kercheval, it is more, but not "significant coverage." It doesn't have significant coverage in any source. If there is any article which discusses the Indigenous peoples of Appalachia, or the Shenandoah Valley, it should have a mention there. I don't think it merits its own article. PersusjCP (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Kercheval source which contains a full page on the subject qualifies as SIGCOV at least. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is one source enough for an entire article? PersusjCP (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not for any other subject on Wikipedia, but it's probably not worth wasting more time on this subject. Thank you for all your research! Yuchitown (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eflex9ja[edit]

Eflex9ja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable news media organisation, i searched very deeply, but nothing found special. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha@Pichpich@Skynxnex@Youknowwhoistheman
Please, i have added references to the page to validate my search. You can also check use the further readings for more information. The website is https://www.eflex9ja.com.ng you can visit and read more as well as search on google for other external links. Thank you all. Jayofpedia (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here, we always appreciate efforts. As it stands, the page fails WP:WEB and even our WP:GNG. you can read more on the welcome page to see the links for better editing or you click here. Thanks Otuọcha (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references are no good. faqabout.me is self-published and we are looking for in-depth coverage in third-party sources, aruwaab9ja.com.ng is a blog (not reliable) and in any case, that link does not provide any coverage of eflex9ja, the link to Jassen Japhethnk's GitHub does not mention eflex9ja (and in any case, is self-published) and finally, the link to radiomhz.com does not provide any significant coverage but even worse, it shows a link to "Eflex9ja FM online live radio" but that link is broken. This is not even close to what we need to meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:01, 1 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. Sandstein 08:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Leslie Arnold[edit]

William Leslie Arnold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable crim. WP:NOTNEWS. TheLongTone (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply two different minor news stories. Curious, yes. Notable, no.TheLongTone (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it has significant coverage from reliable sources over a long period of time then yes, it's notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is significance in the manner in which the subject was found to be in Australia and under the alias John Damon. DNA testing using Public systems, such as Ancestry.com, and authorities tapping into these systems is a very current and relevant/notable topic. Panamax76 (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TheLongTone, you know television has existed for decades? You don't have to buy any of it but you do have to point to actual Wikipedia policies. The onus is on you. – The Grid (talk) 20:52, 1 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. Views are split between keeping outright or sending to draft. As I don't see strong views towards deleting the article outright, I consider a "no consensus" close to be the most appropriate. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Clowes[edit]

David Clowes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think anybody would consider this unremarkable businessman sufficiently notable were it not for the fact that he is involved with a kick-the-ball outfit. This is not enough. TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niikura Parking Area[edit]

Niikura Parking Area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of any notability for this run-of-the-mill highway parking area with 1 shop, toilets, and less than 100 parking spots. Fram (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CycloneYoris talk! 07:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drake–Kanye West feud[edit]

Drake–Kanye West feud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not delete, but rather as recommended, redirect to Rivalry. Concerns WP:TRIVIAL, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:GNG and WP:REFERENCE. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 15:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Doesn't seem helpful to redirect to the broadest possible article on the matter. Anyhow, keep, notable feud. I see no problems with the article unsolvable by normal editing. Mach61 (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:TRIVIAL doesn't link anywhere relevant. Mach61 (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah at first I intended to add to the Drake article under the feuds part but the information I found would have over expanded the page and I thought it would just be better off as an individual article. I was hesitant at first fearing it's irrelevant but later I saw there was numerous coverage on this and is actually notable for Wikipedia inclusion. I'm of the opinion it should be kept but I would love to hear your output on it. Best regards, Serrwinner (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Havlín[edit]

Jakub Havlín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One-time Olympics participant, Jakub Havlín lacks enough criteria that meets WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The closest thing is this news source on Tyden that seems to be a brief significant coverage (mentioned in the first paragraph); other sources I found were mostly limited to him taking part in bobsleigh tournaments (e.g. being listed/mentioned as a participant). I can't explain much, and he also never had medal record. This article should not be confused with the gunsliger of the same name. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh per nom. FromCzech (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manukau Cruising Club Rugby League Club[edit]

Manukau Cruising Club Rugby League Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A painstakingly detailed article on an utterly non-notable club, which operated for one season in a low-level competition only. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, just match reports, padded with lots of speculation, information about the cruising club (but not the rugby club), and so on. Fram (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Per WP:SPEEDYKEEP#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Yuzhang Honors College[edit]

Wu Yuzhang Honors College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It should be notable but that needs evidence. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Safo Boafo[edit]

Yaw Safo Boafo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulvi Mammadov[edit]

Ulvi Mammadov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The facts are completely unsourced, and the information about being a World Champion is also incorrect: in some years mentioned as winning years, the competition was not held at all, and in others, this person is not among the winners. The accuracy of the remaining information has also not been substantiated. Overall, the topic does not meet the GNG. The article has been deleted on Azerbaijani Wikipedia as well. Surə 🗯 13:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed the AFD, reverted their edit. This might be like the rusty pole article. Toketaatalk 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 KCEB. plicit 14:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPKN-LD[edit]

KPKN-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Could merge into KCEB as they share spectrum. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vusal Abdullazade[edit]

Vusal Abdullazade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all of the facts are fake: the person has never been a World champion or an Azerbaijani champion. It is possible to see this from the list of winners of the mentioned competitions. Even the years and countries where the competitions were held are incorrect, in some indicated years no competition was held at all, and in some cases, it was not held in the mentioned country. Generally, there are almost no sources to proof any of the facts in the article and topic doesn't pass GNG. The article has been deleted on Azerbaijani Wikipedia, this is the discussion. Surə 🗯 13:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petrine Olgeirsdottir[edit]

Petrine Olgeirsdottir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SIGCOV failure. Previously prodded with a rationale that the Deaflympics is not an event that gets much media coverage. As a result, there are no independent news about Petrine Olgeirsdottir in her home country. The National Library archives yield 11 hits, all completely trivial. 10 of the 11 hits are random coverage of local children. The last hit is about the sign language rapper Signmark whom she showed up to watch. Of the 5 sources already in the article, all are WP:PRIMARY or WP:PASSING or both. Further googling yields hits about deaf futsal (primary, passing), [10] (primary, very short). This is more significant, but again primary. This and this article are about sign language interpretation and the subject undertaking a bachelor's degree, which is not something people become known for. There is a discussion worth having on the basis of WP:BIAS, but sports events don't really bestow automatic notability anymore, including the Olympics. Geschichte (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be the original article from which the Teknomers piece is translated. But would it confer notability upon a person? Geschichte (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 10:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Observatory India[edit]

Virtual Observatory India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 10:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

L3Harris Airline Academy[edit]

L3Harris Airline Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 10:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top Spin (ride)[edit]

Top Spin (ride) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. I could only find one review from an inadmissible personal blog, and the article is almost entirely WP:OR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous Lollipops[edit]

Ludicrous Lollipops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Damaged Goods (record label) but it may unbalance that article. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shout! Studios releases[edit]

List of Shout! Studios releases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCATALOG; WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All lists of this nature have previously been deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Criterion Collection releases (2nd nomination); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Film Institute releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, the list goes on... --woodensuperman 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Asunción[edit]

Embassy of the United States, Asunción (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The scant information on the embassy building, which appears entirely unremarkable, has already been included in Paraguay–United States relations, of which this is a content fork. Biruitorul Talk 09:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paraguay–United States relations. Sandstein is correct that the article is about the relations of the US and Paraguay. On its own, that wouldn't be a reason for Wikipedia not to have an article on the embassy, but there's essentially no information available on the embassy itself by reliable sources, which is very much a reason. Tserton (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. plicit 14:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUSE-LD[edit]

KUSE-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CycloneYoris talk! 07:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVMA-CD[edit]

WVMA-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find the level of WP:SIGCOV needed for this station to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 10:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology[edit]

Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was recently listed at AfD and then DRV where an immediate relist was permitted. Discussion can be found at User talk:Randykitty in two sections.

My basic issue is that A) we have no meaningful coverage B) I can't find much of anything to indicate that the editor-in-chief even exists (he shares a name with a world-renown economist which confuses things but I can't find anything at his school that lists him as existing). The folks I randomly looked for on the board don't exist at their home schools (and even if those are just typos, *that* seems troubling). In general, I don't think we have enough evidence to believe this is a real journal with actual peer review, let alone something that clears the our inclusion guidelines. The folks abstracting it and indexing it aren't evidence of notability per WP:ROUTINE if nothing else. It exists isn't a reason for us to have an article even for something as important as an academic journal. Hobit (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG, and the potential that this is a hijacked journal just makes it all the more clear why NJOURNALS is not an acceptable set of criteria.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Page was speedy deleted under G:11. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure)CoconutOctopus talk 07:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dznrm[edit]

Dznrm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It doesn't seem like this musician and influencer meets notability guidelines yet, couldn't find any sigcov on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. plicit 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophical Society of New York[edit]

Theosophical Society of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, nothing outside of primaries found with a Google search Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lankaran operation#Overthrow of Bolshevik power. Owen× 23:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lankaran[edit]

Battle of Lankaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, Unneeded DUP/CFORK of Lankaran operation#Overthrow of Bolshevik power.

  • Süleymanov, Mehman (1998). Azərbacan Ordusu (1918–1920). Baku: hərbi Nəşriyyatı.
I can find no information on the publisher other than it is the ""Military Publishing House" of the Ministry of Defense and is described as "one of the ideological branches"."[15]. Based on this I think this fails WP:IS.

Lankaran operation has significant problems of its own, and is based on the single source, but it summarizes the period in Lankaran operation#Overthrow of Bolshevik power. No objection to a redirect to this target. The content is already in this target and there is nothing else for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  04:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secuestro[edit]

Secuestro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a film, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only attempt at a notability claim here is that it won awards from student film competitions -- but our notability tests for films only care about film awards that can be reliably sourced as significant, and don't just indiscriminately accept every single film award that exists. Otherwise, this is written rather more like an advertisement than a proper encyclopedia article, and isn't citing any reliable or WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for anything else either. Bearcat (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanul Science Museum[edit]

Hanul Science Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any sources about this museum in either Korean or English. Idk what the Korean name for it is, but I've tried a number of alt spellings and have nothing toobigtokale (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. plicit 04:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step-by-Step Instruction[edit]

Step-by-Step Instruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't receive secondary, reliable coverage, and WP:GNG is not met. This page was previously BLAR'd into the general disambiguation for Instruction, but nothing at the disambiguation page would be referred to by this title. Restoring contents, and bringing to AfD. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the verified oldest people. The only "keep" argument is that "no one has bothered to check for socures.... again". Maybe, but because that "keep" proponent has also not bothered to search for sources, or at least to cite any, their view is disregarded. The redirect ATD is unopposed. Sandstein 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Eliza Williams[edit]

Anna Eliza Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Notable only for having been the oldest known person for 11 months. Died in 1997; outcome of second AFD in 2017 2018 was to delete. My speedy nomination db-g4 (even fewer sources than the 2017 version) was declined by an admin in favour of redirect to List of the verified oldest people, but the redirect was reverted 6 days later. Wikishovel (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be fine by me. Wikishovel (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You dont even have the date of the last afd correct nor have you seemed to have checked if there are socures for her furthermore just case she died in 1997 doesn't mean she isn't notable? Wwew345t (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typo corrected in nomination thanks. And yes, I made a WP:BEFORE search before nominating, and couldn't find better sourcing than what's here already. If you can find better sources that I'd missed, I'd be grateful. Wikishovel (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Kumar (IPS)[edit]

Rajeev Kumar (IPS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like a WP:BIO1E. Nothing notable except the one event. All the other sources are from non-WP:SIGCOV sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi @Necrothesp, agree with you, but can you or anyone clarify if he is just an acting DGP or full time DGP? (Full time DGP requires approval from UPSC, I guess). If he is acting, he can not be notable based on that appointment. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User4edits, according to their official website, it stated that he is serving as principal secretary to IT department holding the charge of DGP West Bengal. I remember last time when Manoj Malaviya was appointed as acting DGP, before confirming by UPSC after few months as permanent DGP of the state. Though no acting word is mentioned in their website (as 24/01/2024 per website), some media stated he took charge as acting DGP on the time of his appointment. CSMention269 (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CSMention269, I do not know of any full-time DGP of even small states such as Goa being the Principal Secy to IT Department; as you said he is holding the charge of DGP, and therefore is only acting DGP, and therefore I would vote for:
  • Draftify until he is appointed as a full time DGP.
User4edits (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Saratoga Springs, New York#Arts and culture. plicit 02:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horses Saratoga Style[edit]

Horses Saratoga Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No references, and one hit on Google News from 2013. Uhooep (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 20:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf Storaasli[edit]

Olaf Storaasli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads like a resume and appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. Links currently on page appear to all point to personal webpages, are dead links, and/or are his published papers. Conducted WP:BEFORE and could not find any coverage of significance. Rehsarb (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Eurasian Studies[edit]

Center for Eurasian Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent, in depth sources found. Note that due to the close connection of the topic to the Turkish government, sources that are not independent of the latter (including state media like Anadolu Agency) cannot be counted for notability. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr/Ms. Thank you for openening the same discussion almost 4 years later. The discussion 4 years, with the participation of other individuals was closed and enough resources were decided to be present. The article does have already have independent sources, Balkan Günlüğü, Robert Schuman Center, World Review of Political Economy, Istituto Affari Internazionali, etc. Please do consult (again) the references part. As it can be seen (again) there are multiple sources, from multiple countries. It is also interesting the sources such Istituto Affari Internazionali, Robert Schuman Center are not considered as in depth. Tetulun (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Concerning "Balkan Günlüğü," this news outlet is recognized within various Balkan communities for its independent reporting. Like many diaspora-driven media organizations, including those in Greek and Armenian communities, "Balkan Günlüğü" is valued for its diverse perspectives. It’s important for Wikipedia to represent such sources accurately, reflecting their significance in their respective communities.
  2. The mention of AVİM in the news coverage warrants a nuanced approach. The extent and context of AVİM’s inclusion in the news are relevant factors. Wikipedia’s editorial guidelines caution against bias or subjective judgment in evaluating source significance. My observations suggest a recurring pattern in the treatment of Turkish think tank entries, particularly AVİM, which could be perceived as targeted or biased.'
  3. Regarding the references to Robert Schuman and Istituto Affari Internazionali: while it's true that working papers and opinion pieces require careful consideration for reliability, these institutions are generally respected in their fields. Their analyses, including those divergent from AVİM's views, contribute to a comprehensive understanding of issues like far-right movements and women's rights, topics AVİM has addressed.
  4. The inclusion of Istituto Affari Internazionali as a source should be viewed in the context of its publication history and relevance. Its decision to republish content from Hürriyet Daily News, a well-regarded international news source, underscores the value of the content rather than detracts from its credibility.
  5. The reference to JSTOR highlights a misunderstanding. JSTOR is a digital library hosting academic journals; it doesn't cite sources but provides access to articles that do. In scholarly discourse, citations of organizations like AVİM are commonplace, whether for support or critique, contributing to factual and comprehensive academic discussions.
  6. The practice of citing think tanks and grey literature is a standard academic convention, serving to enrich discussions with diverse viewpoints and specialized knowledge.
  7. Comparisons between AVİM and ASAM should be approached with caution to avoid unfounded associations. It’s crucial for Wikipedia discussions to remain objective and free from personal biases or assumptions about contributors' intentions.
Tetulun (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the list of references by including three new sources, each offering news relevant to our discussion. These sources are:
1) An Index from the University of Barcelona, a respected academic institution renowned for its contributions to scholarly research.
2) A news piece from the Eurasia Center at John von Neumann University (Hungarian university) , which is noted for its academic focus on Eurasian studies.
3) A news item from Georgian news organization, the Accent News. Tetulun (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enhanced the article by introducing a dedicated section on the Center's various activities (Projects). Additionally, enriched the article's verifiability by incorporating three new references, from Middle East Technical University, WorldCat, and Google Books. Tetulun (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Buidhe
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://balkangunlugu.com.tr/tuerkiyenin-dueuence-kurulular-ankarada-topland/ ? ? No Passing mention in a list of think tanks No
https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/72461/RSC%202021_70.pdf?sequence=1 "Robert Schuman Center" Yes ? Working papers are not always RS No No results for "AVIM", "ASAM", "Eurasian Studies", or other monikers for the article topic No
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.11.4.0533 Yes Yes No Cites AVIM as a source... once. No
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/opinion/teoman-ertugrul-tulun/the-steady-rise-of-the-far-right-in-sweden-136813 (the one listed as "Istituto Affari Internazionali") ? No Opinion pieces are not RS ? No
https://web.archive.org/web/20230921084636/https://miar.ub.edu/issn/1306-9136 ? Yes No database entry, no significant coverage No
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0JyhRP6te3sEcAA4Y2Cb3PNoKGvTJ7waQmPxN61UTymZtATK9poigPGvW2MyBwGdFl&id=100064101942956&mibextid=Nif5oz No Facebook post about the source's collaboration with the think tank, equivalent to a press release ? ? No
https://accentnews.ge/en/article/104978-viktor-qipianma-evraziis-kvlevebis-centrtan-avim No No intellectual independence, looks like reprint of a press release ? No no in depth discussion of AVIM as required by WP:NORG No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this discussion needs more than 2 editors taking part in it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added three new sources from Agos Newspaper, Euronews, Kıbrıs Postası (Cyprus Mirror), Organization of Turkic States. Tetulun (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The policy-based consensus is clear. Star Mississippi 14:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Failatu Abdul-Razak[edit]

Failatu Abdul-Razak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be notable for only one thing (WP:BLP1E), which is attempting to break the world record, but she didn't manage to do that. The rest of the article is also promotional in tone. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct; the tone of the article is promotional. A complete overhaul is necessary. Instead of deleting it, I suggest we undertake a comprehensive revision to address the promotional aspects and improve its overall quality. Ihikky (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although except for nom there are only "keep" arguments, they are weaker than the nomination statement and counter-argument. I do not see consensus for "delete" so I am relisting in hopes of more in-depth discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Karaikudi#Education. Unopposed. Sandstein 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMSV. Hr. Sec School[edit]

SMSV. Hr. Sec School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced since creation. No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andhra University. Unopposed. Sandstein 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajah R.S.R.K. Ranga Rao College[edit]

Rajah R.S.R.K. Ranga Rao College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy article unreferenced since creation. No evidence of notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× 20:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Staunton[edit]

Mary Staunton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Thunder (band). Sourced content can be merged from the history if desired and supported by editorial consensus. Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Höglund[edit]

Mikael Höglund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no sources cited and from my searching that I did last night, I was not able to find enough sources for Höglund's bio to meet WP:GNG. However, I would encourage Swedish users (or anyone, really) to find sources as the article claims he has at least a shred of notability. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 21:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the admin who makes the final call in AfD discussions, but I would not oppose a merge. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The one "weak keep" actually makes a case for deletion ("inadequate sourcing"). Sandstein 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KNLA-CD[edit]

KNLA-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. plicit 02:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of blade materials[edit]

List of blade materials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Information is trivial and it's set up to collect trivial information. Some of the info is LEAD is not trivial but there's no sourcing. The only sources that talk about this as a group are not reliable; it's mostly based on self-published work (not RS) and company info sheets (which have info about individual materials but not the group as a whole). I'm not saying it's not a notable topic because it could be, but I don't think there's anything currently on this page that meets our criteria for inclusion. I tried to make edits but I felt like I was just removing things because there weren't sources I felt like I could mine. This is my first time submitting an AfD so please correct me if I'm doing it wrong. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OHSAA Southwest Region athletic conferences#Greater Catholic League. plicit 02:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Greater Catholic League[edit]

Girls' Greater Catholic League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable topic, that has been unreferenced forever. Written like an advert as well. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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