< June 11	June 13 >

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We All Love Ella: Celebrating the First Lady of Song[edit]

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

Found a review of the album in Billboard, but no other evidence of notability. No valid redirect targets that I'm aware of. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could it be the soundtrack for this PBS special [1]? They both came out about the same time... Very minimal review in a Seattle newspaper [2]. I'm not seeing enough extensive coverage to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't wrap my head around the idea to delete an album that shows various musicians paying tribute to another. Many of them are a surprise in this context, so the tracks are a valuable addition to their discography too. The album had an international release in eight countries, it comprises original material, some nowhere else to be found, others featured on later compilations (eg k.d. lang, m.bublé) Discogs.

I understand the point of the album not being better documented. But on the web it is is a little harder to find reviews from 2007, many papers don't have a proper archive that is easy to access. There are many lemmas of albums with only a reference to AllMusic where this album has also a review. (It is actually found everywhere my search shows, deezer, jazzecho, jambase, spotify, apple...) It is a release of the Ella Fitzgerald Charitable Foundation, who has heard about that? archieved booklet

It is certainly good music. So why would you want to delete it! Isn't there anything else to do? Improve this article?/ MenkinAlRire 08:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is with notability, i.e. encyclopedias (and thus Wikipedia) do not include all available information indiscriminately. If there isn't reliable coverage available that shows notability, then there's nothing to be improved upon. The AllMusic review is useful in this regard, but the rest of your links aren't for various reasons. And we can't just keep the album because notable artists were involved, as notability is not inherited. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuietHere:, I've added numerous reviews from The Wikipedia Library. No Swan So Fine (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but most likely keep--It charted on the Billboard 200 and gets lots of hits in ProQuest, for one--granted, that is picking up "release date" articles and some repeated wire service articles. It was reviewed in Popular Music and Society and other publications. We're paying for The Wikipedia Library[3], folks... Caro7200 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which I checked, saw a bunch of announcements, and moved on from. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added reviews from The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Daily News, The Baltimore Sun, The Buffalo News and The Evening Standard found in The Wikipedia Library. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reviews have now been located to show that it has received enough coverage to be considered notable enough for a separate article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks for NSSF for looking through TWL. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 06:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent expansion shows it comfortably meeting notability guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability demonstrated satisfactory to the GNG. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clarence Railway. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demons Bridge railway station[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Of the three sources, two are trivial mentions and one does not mention the station at all. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Clarence Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and United Kingdom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What books? None are cited in the article and you haven't given any examples. And there is no policy or guideline called consistency, it is a disambig page where none of the mentioned pages have anything to do with "keeping articles because other articles happen to exist". It seems like you're making up things to support retaining the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. Personal feelings? Is it feeling oriented when arguing somewhere existed at one point. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you feel the need to copy-paste the same incoherent arguments across multiple AfDs, I will copy my refutation of your "arguments": I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stillington railway station about related article Stillington railway station. I'm personally of the opinion that these two articles, plus other similar ones should be considered collectively. There are some references in reliable sources. Per @Garuda3:'s comments on the other article's deletion discussion it doesn't make sense to my mind to delete this station's article and introduce inconsistency breaking adjacent article's navigation templates. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 16:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and even @Trainsandotherthings feels they should be deleted and hes not even in the UK 😂. Pmsl DragonofBatley (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you act like a grown up, please? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nomination. The arguments above are thoroughly unconvincing, relying on made up policies and personal feelings. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once around when ROF Aycliffe existed. Personal feelings? Is it feeling oriented when arguing somewhere existed at one point. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nomination would be the best choice here. While the station itself is notable only on a local level, the railway it once served is notable enough for a Wikipedia page. TH1980 (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After careful consideration of the content and sourcing of the article on Demons Bridge railway station, it is evident that significant concerns exist regarding its notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. The station appears to lack substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish its significance. While the topic is of local interest, the article does not meet the general notability guideline (GNG) due to insufficient verifiable information. Therefore, the recommended action is delete. This decision aligns with Wikipedia's core content policies, ensuring that articles reflect topics of encyclopedic significance with adequate sourcing. Alternative actions such as merge or redirect are not feasible given the current state of the article and the lack of related content to integrate or redirect towards.Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC) Strike out AI-generated comment. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote this with ChatGPT, didn't you? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clarence Railway. The two keep !votes have failed to show that this is treated significantly in independent reliable secondary sources. I see a claim that "it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles." but at AfD we need to examine the sources and none have been presented, and I don't see any in searches. I do note that, since the AfD notice was added, two sources were added to the page. These are [4] a website for local history (disused) railway enthusiasts, which names the contributer but is unclear on its sources and editorial oversight. I would consider whether it is essentialy a WP:SPS but since the mention of Demon Bridge is passing, there is no need to consider that one further. The other new source is [5] which tells us: Two new stations, Simpasture and Demons Bridge, were opened on the former Clarence Railway. Again a passing mention. Sources need to contain significant coverage sufficient that an article on the subject can be written. These don't, none others have been found. This should be deleted, but the redirect is an acceptable ATD as it is a disused station on that railway. Clarence Railway is the appropriate page to mention this station. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After two relists, editors remain divided and unconvinced about whether or not sourcing is of sufficient depth. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesaka Technologies[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill and other insufficient sources without proper in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails GNG, NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - The Mail & Guardian article seems prominent enough to establish notability. WmLawson (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete per WP:NCORP 104.7.152.180 (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: An IP that added "Delete per WP:NCORP" to 3 AFDs in 2 minutes. I think the chance that the closing admin places weight on these posts is approximately zero. Geschichte (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion, at any rate -- struck. jp×g 🗯️ 01:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on present citations and also have found these additional citations Insider Monkey, Seeking Alpha, itweb, and The Street. It should be noted that this is a publicly listed company on NASDAQ and there are more news articles in Google under its current name and old name "Net 1 UEPS." Hkkingg (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Seeking Alpha and TheStreet are, as I understand it, generally considered group blogs, not RS, and as far as I can tell Insider Monkey seems to be the same. Is there any specific reason not immediately obvious you believe those sources meet the criteria? (itweb seems to be a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement as well) Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one. Simply Wall Street has a detailed analysis of the company's stock performance,[6] and this article (the second half) has important facts about the company (e.g., "3,300 employees in five African countries"), but there are so many press releases in the search results that it's hard to tell what's useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in Canada[edit]

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

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

List of battles in Albania Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Albania
List of battles in Algeria Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Algeria
List of battles in Belgium Draftified
List of battles in Croatia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Croatia
List of battles in Afghanistan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in Afghanistan
List of battles in medieval India Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of battles in medieval India
List of conflicts in Egypt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Egypt. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you mind linking the AfDs? It would be more helpful than the red links above. Conyo14 (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. NLeeuw (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I lean delete for this, if not for the fact that we have Military history of Canada, but also that the grouping of conflicts/battles are better suited as a category. I couldn't find anything off a basic google search for this grouping, but maybe there's a book or something. Conyo14 (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 Good point. Alternately, what we could do instead, is integrate this list into List of Canadian military victories, which would then be reworked to a standardised List of wars and battles involving Canada instead, while purging all wars and battles which took place on what is now Canadian soil that did not involve "Canada" as such. The current List of Canadian military victories relies on a single source, and conveniently leaves out all Canadian military defeats, and all conflict results which were a bit "meh" (also known as "inconclusive" or "indecisive"). NLeeuw (talk) 07:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, let's first take stock of which lists we've already got, because there seems to be a lot of WP:OVERLAP.
List of conflicts in Canada: 1003 – 2022 (so far)

List of wars involving Canada: 1003 – present

List of Canadian military victories: 1609 – 2010 (so far)

List of Canadian battles during the First World War (Canadian Expeditionary Force): 10 March 1915 – 5–7 November 1918

List of Canadian military operations: 1947 – present

Canadian peacekeeping#List of UN missions: 1948–present

NLeeuw (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still looks like there is some debate about the content of this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NavjotSR (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Slovakia at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marián Skupek[edit]

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge as ATD because I could not find enough in-depth coverage for this athlete to meet WP:GNG. I only found SME while the rest are brief mentions and profile database sources, both types of which are not independent. He was not even in the top three (?) luge winners of mentioned tournament. This might be WP:TOOSOON situation. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also incoming links from multiple EUropean Championships and multiple World Championships. Geschichte (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. My last comment was made quite quickly, and now I had the chance to elaborate more. He participated in the following European Championships: 2021, 2022, 2023 and the following World Championships: 2021, 2023, 2024. In addition, he won a gold medal at the 2022 FIL Junior European Luge Championships which gained some attention for being Slovakia's first gold medal in that championship. None of these achievements would hold enough weight on their own, but together I think they just might do. Then there are the sources. [7] [8] [9] [10] (less) [11] (more passing) [12]. These were some of them, partly from a news agency (and I don't understand Slovak by any means), but at least they give some biographical overview. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source #1 can't be accessed at the moment; Source #2 and #3 are duplicated from the SME one I mentioned; Source #6 looks like a blogspot. I also was wondering if you actually use a translator or try to avoid it. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided above don't seem to be enough coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. A few more sources would do it, but I am not seeing it here. Malinaccier (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect per the nom as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. This protects the BLP subject, maintains page history and allows any editor with better information to improve this article when this athlete makes news. WP:SPORTSPERSON instructs that at least one reliable source must significantly cover the subject. We're not there so far. BusterD (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per arguments above. I'm not satisfied with the level of coverage identified so far. JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In light of the new sources found. Arguments to delete the article have not addressed the new sources, which seem to counter initial concerns that there was a lack of notability. Malinaccier (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tata AIA Life[edit]

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

Insufficient number of references for the significance of the article Welcome to Pandora (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Welcome to Pandora a lack of references is not reason for deletion. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion.

I would suggest a Redirect to Tata Group which holds a majority stake in the company, as I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. I did, however, found a lot of routine coverage: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Broc (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Owen× ☎ 13:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tata_Group#Affiliated_companies. Page fails WP:SIGCOV in secondary independent sources and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to Keep the article as a STUB until its contents are expanded. Redirecting this article would NOT serve the purpose. Moreover, if Tata AIA Life is nominated for deletion, then TATA AIG should also be nominated for deletion since both are joint ventures between Tata Sons & foreign financial companies. Indian English Literature (talk) 03:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Indian English Literature we are discussing deletion of this page, whose notability should be evaluated on its own merits and not based on other content present or not present on Wikipedia. WP:WHATABOUTX should be avoided as argument. Broc (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough in-depth news articles on a recent ad campaign to justify an article (though I suggest that it be merely a section, not a whole article),[20][21][22][23][24][25], and that's before we get to the 400+ hits on the company's name in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Many of those include routine coverage, but not all of them are restricted to only routine coverage. I suggest Fortune, as it's a compare-and-contrast (classic secondary source), Economic Times (detailed evaluation of company's risks and opportunities), and maybe E4M (tying their political activity to their overall branding). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WhatamIdoing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudreach[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2A02:6B6B:16C:0:D8BF:FBCC:5819:FF15 proposed deletion with the rationale:

Reads like promotional material or like the About page of the company. Probably conflict of interest. No substance.

However, since Cloudreach was discussed at AfD before, PROD cannot be used. I have converted this to an AfD for them. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Computing. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was previously deleted and for good reasons. Most reliable sources are not about the company but about bigger companies who bought the business, and even those are flimsy and don't justify an article about this. Additionally the company website doesn't even exist anymore which is another reason to think this doesn't pass WP:N. 2A02:6B6B:58:0:F935:2F9:817C:F0F4 (talk) 18:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you the same person who proposed deletion? (The first two segments of the IPv6 addresses are identical.) If so, you need to disclose this fact, to avoid creating an illusion of support (WP:BADSOCK). jlwoodwa (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. Didn't mean to trick anybody (IP was changed by ISP) but indeed I should have mentioned it in my response. 2A02:6B6B:58:0:F935:2F9:817C:F0F4 (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and sorry if I came across as too confrontational. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - insufficient sources to merit inclusion. WmLawson (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as one Delete vote is from the nominator and this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion due to earlier AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Atos: Seems to be fine to incorporate a small section into the Atos article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or !delete if not merging, I'm ok with that as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merger is possible but all the sources are WP:ORGTRIV so I'm not even sure it's worth that or a redirect. Based on the thinness of the available sourcing, delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stanhope and Tyne Railway. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saltersgate Cottage railway station[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Of the two sources, one does not mention the station at all. The other is a personal website (likely fails WP:RS) with a total of five sentences about the station. A BEFORE search does not find anything more substantial. My bold redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway was removed by the article's creator. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge pertinent information and photograph into Stanhope and Tyne Railway would be a good idea. The station itself is not notable enough for a standalone article, but the railway itself is, so that page would be a good home for this info. TH1980 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what would go between High Stouk and the next article station? A redirect breaking the preceding or following station? It existed at one point and is documented to have. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP: Consistency and per WP: Notable. As it's got coverage in quite a few books and articles. DragonofBatley (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're making up a non-existent "consistency" policy, this article cites no books, and the citations present do not give significant coverage of the station. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It existed at one point and is documented to have. So you should get over it and accept it was once on the Stanhope and Tyne Railway even on OS Maps which are a good source. Just be breaking consistency in the preceding and following stations table in that case. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to "get over" anything, train stations are not notable on Wikipedia simply by virtue of once existing, per community consensus. The existence of other stations is irrelevant, we are discussing this station and you have failed to refute any of the points I made above. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cause your claiming it's based on personal feelings. In what way is it personal feelings? Its a few wiki editors claiming it is not notable? Yet it existed beforehand? So if it didn't exist it be a figment of my imagination. But it's been documented in books and on OS maps and there's nothing to refute. If one researches them proper they will be mentioned and recorded but in ones own mind. Newspapers or journals or a website should not be used as sources or a book. Or map. It should be a what? Government site? A forum? A notable book from Charles Dickens? What should it it be in the mind of @Trainsandotherthings? Enlighten me from one experienced editor to another? What should an Americans idea of a British railway station be? also @Pi.1415926535 and @TH1980. As I'm seeing nothing more than trying to remove articles that I've worked on in my own time and thoroughly researched just for you redirect them cause you don't either agree or know the lines all that well based on your localities internationally and lack of mindset to try and debate until now (Pi.). It's documented and notable like Crook and High Stouk stations. Accept it and stop looking for reasons to delete them. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley: Personal attacks are not acceptable. Instead of arguing and insulting editors, please read Wikipedia:Notability so you understand what "notability" means on Wikipedia. For something to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article, merely existing is not enough. It needs to have significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. (Yes, that means that many former railway stations are not notable enough for Wikipedia - it is an encyclopedia, not a railway station database.) If that significant coverage is not present, you should not create the article in the first place, because it is likely to end up deleted. Instead, you should add the information to an existing article (like the line or the locality) where appropriate. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535:, I am not personally attacking anyone. I asked simple questions and created missing links on Clarence Railway and Stanhope and Tyne Railways railway topography tables. If I redirected other railway articles, I would be reverted without prior discussion. I have provided sources from OS maps, books, websites, and other historical sites. I am not implying that Americans cannot edit British railway articles. I am simply asking for what should be included in a notable article? Again keep per WP: Notability (and consistency for railway stations previous and following/terminus) and stopping the topography which has a lot of red links to be completed yet. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not personally attacking anyone. Care to explain this then? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway per nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May as well do that to all the stations at Crook and Consett if that's the way to break consistency in the station articles. Not going to though and actually Disused Stations is an accepted article since it's in depth and uses sources to back it's pages up. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stanhope and Tyne Railway, in line with the nomination. The arguments for keeping are less than convincing; WP:CONSISTENT links to a dab page, and merely that other stops on this rail line have their own article means very little in light of WP:NTRAINSTATION, (which requires that train stations pass WP:GNG or some other subject-specific notability criteron). Coverage may exist in a few books and articles, but trivial mentions of the station don't exactly amount to the WP:SIGCOV that would be required for the GNG. Even the sorts of railfan sites dedicated to this sort of thing (such as disused-stations) note that the passenger station may well have never opened, and they tend to draw on very scarce sourcing in doing so. I'm just not able to find significant coverage of this station from multiple independent reliable sources.
As an alternative to deletion, redirecting the page to the line which purportedly ran through the station seems more appropriate than leaving this standalone article up. If it's wise, the limited content from this article could be upmerged, and redirecting also publicly preserves this page's history in case sourcing is eventually found or created. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 London Broncos players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Wicks[edit]

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

Redirect to List of London Broncos players as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this rugby league player. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple season pro footballer.Fleets (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participation-based criteria for athletes were deprecated two years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Not really enough references but still something, notability if carrer is also somewhere in the middle. Mn1548 (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to List of London Broncos players. Maybe too soon. Maybe not. Tkaras1 (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Borys[edit]

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

This reads like a short and to-the-point business resume. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Giving benefit of the doubt to the author of the article. — Maile (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article aims to highlight the individual's significant contributions. However, it's crucial to ensure the content adheres to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Any promotional language should be removed to maintain a neutral and objective tone. I would appreciate your assistance with this. Benmotia (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I have withdrawn the nomination. — Maile (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moominvalley[edit]

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

This location fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Much of this is unsourced and original research. I also reviewed the corresponding Finnish article and it has insufficient reliable secondary sources to generate SIGCOV. Sources do not say much more than this being the home of the Moomins. Jontesta (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NEXIST. According to sources, at least in Europe, Moominvalley is about as iconic as Narnia rather than mere fancruft. There is even a museum based on it. I have found SIGCOV in 3 book sources so far, Children's Literature Comes of Age, the Oxford Encyclopedia of Children's Literature, and Literary Wonderlands, so it already passes GNG and I am sure many more such sources exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Swedish Wikipedia has another book, which according to the title might be about the universe as a whole or the location: Westin, Boel (1988). Familjen i dalen: Tove Janssons muminvärld. Stockholm: Bonnier. ISBN 91-0-047460-6. Geschichte (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zxcvbnm's sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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× ☎ 21:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aarons[edit]

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

Promotional bio with COI issues. Entirely void of reliable sources—removing uncited BLP content would leave the article blank. Other than IBDB and Playbill credits, the only source I can see mentioning Aarons at all is a passing reference in the NYT. Probably borderline A7. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Theatre. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find significant coverage of this musician outside of irregular mentions in various Broadway blog sites, and I see nothing in the article which would suggest notability.Spiralwidget (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have removed the obvious WP:PROMO and WP:PEACOCK. IBDB confirms that he played the guitar in at least 10 Broadway productions from 2004 to at least 2018, and has served as musical coordinator for more than two dozen Broadway productions since 2014. I don't think these roles necessarily convey notability, but just pointing out that the info in his article is now at least partly easy to verify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to AllMusic where it lists credits:

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-aarons-mn0000547167#credits

More sources for Film and TV on IMDB.com

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007497/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2 108.53.237.198 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Speedy) delete No indication of notability - fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC. Completely unsourced BLP. C F A 💬 00:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other articles:

https://guitarcenterprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/05/

https://www.local802afm.org/allegro/articles/how-do-i-get-a-gig-on-broadway/ 108.53.237.198 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Advertising, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:MUSICBIO AND WP:GNG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the multiple issues identified by editors above. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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× ☎ 21:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wish Way[edit]

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

This object does not pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It does not cite any sources and I could not find SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor plot point; the article is only sourced (implicitly) to the Oz books themselves. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article on extremely minor fictional element. Searches turned up nearly nothing on the fictional concept, and the article name would not serve as a particularly useful Redirect anywhere. Rorshacma (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edwin Arlington Robinson. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tilbury Town[edit]

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

This does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is not much that the sources say about this location. I cannot even find it mentioned in articles about the author's fiction. This doesn't have enough sources for a viable article. Jontesta (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Edwin Arlington Robinson - I am finding some discussion about the town, but its largely in relation to the poet himself and how it was basically a slightly fictionalized version of his hometown. This seems like a WP:NOPAGE situation where it would be best discussed in the main article on the poet and his work rather than split out as a separate page. Rorshacma (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Edwin Arlington Robinson per Rorshacma. Does not rise to WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid redirect target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Apparel. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lerappa[edit]

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

Does not meet our notability guidelines. What few sources exist fall under the category of WP:NOTNEWS, and even then, is more related to American Apparel's controversies than it is about their short-lived virtual store. Jontesta (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Apparel, "History" or "Branding and advertising" section. There's a couple of passing mentions and an interview in reliable sources ([26], [27], [28]), so it warrants a mention in the American Apparel article but not its own article. --Mika1h (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. There is a valid merge target for the brief news burst. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salem K. Meera[edit]

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

No sources, no claim of or sources for notability — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only mention is in Wikipedia rip-off sites and this youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCro0duFrlz7wjS9wr0g0AA with less than 100 views on each video. I see no reason to keep this article. [Unsigned by User:Spiralwidget]
Delete: This article lacks reliable sources, it's difficult to assess the article's credibility. I vote for deletion. Waqar💬 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Shueh-shuan[edit]

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

No real sources and fails notability test. A search turns up only social media — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Huang, Xiaojun 黃筱筠 (2013-02-24). "前綠委兒子劉學軒打造女子國樂團　開拓大陸" [Liu Xuexuan, son of the former Green Committee member, creates a women's Chinese orchestra to explore the mainland]. China Review News Agency [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-13. Retrieved 2024-06-13.
  The article notes: "劉學軒1969年生，2008年創立“無双樂團”，創立樂團之前是作曲家，創作種類多元，包括管弦樂、室內樂、打擊樂、現代國樂乃至於電影、電視、動畫配樂、兒童音樂及數位音樂。應邀擔任國家國樂團“2006精緻系列”四場音樂會製作人及音樂指導。也曾幫母親翁金珠製作選舉歌曲。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan was born in 1969. He founded the "Wushuang Orchestra" in 2008. Before founding the orchestra, he was a composer and created a variety of genres, including orchestral music, chamber music, percussion, modern Chinese music, and even film, TV, animation soundtracks, children's music and digital music. Invited to serve as the producer and music director of four concerts of the National Chinese Orchestra's "2006 Exquisite Series". He also helped his mother Weng Jinzhu compose election songs."
2. Tang, Yawen 湯雅雯 (2009-02-23). "推手劉學軒翁金珠的兒子" [Driving force Liu Xuexuan, son of Wong Chin-chu]. World Journal (in Chinese). p. A10.
  The article notes: "文化大學助理教授劉學軒擅長將傳統音樂創新，融合交響樂與電子音樂，打造跨界音樂型態。 ... 如果不說，很少人知道劉學軒就是立委翁金珠的兒子，他從事音樂創作十多年，管弦樂、大型民族音樂、電子樂都擅長，甚至擔任樂團、劇場音樂企畫，頗受好評。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, an assistant professor at the Chinese Culture University, is good at innovating traditional music, integrating symphony and electronic music, and creating cross-border music styles. ... If not mentioned, few people know that Liu Xuexuan is the son of legislator Wong Chin-chu. He has been engaged in music creation for more than ten years. He is good at orchestral music, large-scale ethnic music, and electronic music. He even serves as a music planner for orchestras and theaters, and is well received."
3. Zhang, Qiongyue 張瓊月 (2011-09-15). "無雙樂團 13日驚艷匹茲堡" [Peerless Band Stuns Pittsburgh on the 13th]. World Journal (in Chinese). p. C9.
  The article notes: "文建會金獎作曲大師劉學軒目前任職文化大學。2008年12月成立無雙樂團，從旗下十名團員開始，刻增至42名團員。由前台灣國家國樂團樂團首席王明華擔任無雙樂團藝術總監。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, a master composer who won the Gold Award from the Council for Cultural Affairs, currently works at the Cultural University. Wushuang Band was established in December 2008. It started with ten members and quickly increased to 42 members. Wang Minghua, former concertmaster of the Taiwan National Chinese Orchestra, serves as the artistic director of the Wushuang Orchestra."
  The article notes: "劉學軒親自設計團員身穿的現代版旗袍與12公分的高跟鞋表演，更將她們所受的美儀訓練全新呈現給觀眾。... 劉學軒成功地重新包裝國樂，結合交響、流行與電子樂風，顛覆一般人對古典音樂的刻板印象，使無雙樂團所到之處大受歡迎。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan personally designed the modern version of cheongsam and 12cm high heels worn by the members for the performance, and also presented their beauty training to the audience in a new way. ...Liu Xuexuan has successfully repackaged traditional Chinese music, combining symphonic, pop and electronic music styles, subverting the stereotypes of classical music that ordinary people have, making the Wushuang Orchestra very popular wherever it goes."
4. Huang, Junming 黃俊銘 (2004-10-23). "瓦薩里劉學軒因石獅結緣" [Vasari and Liu Xuexuan became acquainted with stone lions]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C6.
  The article notes: "瓦薩里二度訪台，除帶來波希米亞風的德弗乍克，重頭戲是演出劉學軒「三峽祖師廟的石獅」，這是他向畫家李梅樹致敬之作，紀念李主導重修祖師廟。曾修打擊樂的劉學軒加了舞獅、北管樂，曲子譜完，昨天得到瓦薩里的熱情相擁。"
  From Google Translate: "Vasari visited Taiwan for the second time. In addition to bringing the bohemian Dvorchak, the highlight was Liu Xuexuan's "Stone Lions of the Three Gorges Ancestral Temple". This was his tribute to the painter Li Meishu and commemorated the reconstruction of the Ancestral Temple led by Li. Liu Xuexuan, who once studied percussion, added lion dance and northern wind instruments. After composing the music, he received a warm embrace from Vasari yesterday."
5. Wu, Yuzhen 吳玉貞 (2004-10-20). "布達佩斯交響樂團來台演出台灣作家作品劉學軒創作獲肯定母親翁金珠欣慰" [Budapest Symphony Orchestra comes to Taiwan to perform works by Taiwanese writers. Liu Xuexuan's creation was recognised and his mother Wong Chin-chu was delighted.]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. CR2.
  The article notes: "現年卅五歲的劉學軒南門國中音樂班畢業後考上國立藝專音樂科，再到美國加州大學長堤分校專攻作曲，學成後回國一直致力音樂創作，劉學軒說，三峽祖師廟的石獅是他回國後在家當了七年超級奶爸的作品，在家創作也帶孩子，要把作曲當職業真的很辛苦，還好撐過來了，"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, now 35 years old, graduated from the music class of Nanmen Junior High School and was admitted to the music department of the National Art College. He then went to the University of California at Changdi to specialize in composition. After completing his studies, he returned to China and devoted himself to music creation. Liu Xuexuan said that the stone lions at the Three Gorges Ancestral Temple This is the work of him who worked as a super dad at home for seven years after returning to China. He was composing and taking care of his children at home. It was really hard to turn composition into a career, but luckily he managed to survive."
6. Hei, Zhongliang (2004-09-17). "三峽祖師廟的石獅獲瓦薩里選為巡演曲目劉學軒曲融台灣情布達佩斯樂團為新曲目添中國鑼鼓" [The Stone Lions of the Three Gorges Patriarch Temple were selected by Vasari as a tour piece. Liu Xuexuan. Qu Rong Taiwan. Love Budapest Orchestra adds Chinese gongs and drums to new repertoire]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). p. A12.
  The article notes: "今年35歲，出生於彰化的劉學軒，有一位著名的「縣長媽媽」翁金珠，但更有一位「影響自己更深」的父親劉峰松（現任台灣文獻館館長），從父親在文化界勇於任事的過程中，學習到尊重本身文化的重要性，使得擅吹中國笛的他，"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan, 35 years old, was born in Changhua. He has a famous "county magistrate mother" Weng Jinzhu, but he also has a father Liu Fengsong (currently the director of the Taiwan Archives) who "affects him more deeply". In the process of working, he learned the importance of respecting his own culture, which made him, who is good at playing the Chinese flute, ..."
  The article notes: "劉學軒表示，媽媽在聽到自己作品將由布達佩斯交響樂團演出的消息時，幾幾乎是以「跳起來」的興奮心情，來祝福兒子的幸運，畢竟昔日母親以鋼琴啟蒙了如今的他，而後進入南門國中音樂班、前國立藝專音樂科就讀，退伍後曾考進實驗國樂團，再赴美國加州州立大學長堤分校專攻作曲，1999年才學成返國。"
  From Google Translate: "Liu Xuexuan said that when his mother heard the news that his work would be performed by the Budapest Symphony Orchestra, she almost jumped up with excitement to wish her son good luck. After all, his mother had inspired him with the piano in the past, and then entered the South He studied in the music class of a junior high school and the music department of the former National Academy of Arts. After being discharged from the army, he was admitted to the Experimental Chinese Orchestra, and then went to the California State University at Long Beach to major in composition. He returned to Taiwan after completing his studies in 1999."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Shueh-shuan (traditional Chinese: 劉學軒; simplified Chinese: 刘学轩; pinyin: Liú Xuéxuān to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard. Besides, the subject person has won once and been nominated twice for the Golden Melody Awards.[29][30] Fulfills WP:ANYBIO#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Namibian first-class cricketers. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Strauss (cricketer)[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this modern cricketer. JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers Sourcing for non-international international cricketers is commonly difficult to find. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD, and I'd have no issue to these non-internationals being BOLDly redirected going forward. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. Robo^Cric Let's chat 07:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Namibian first-class cricketers. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danie van Schoor[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this modern cricketer. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers Sourcing for non-international international cricketers is commonly difficult to find. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD, and I'd have no issue to these non-internationals being BOLDly redirected going forward. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Namibian first-class cricketers: per JTtheOG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nqubeko Zulu[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Evans (Scottish footballer)[edit]

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

Evans potentially fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and the article fails to present any acceptable independent sources. The best that I could find was Daily Record, which has 2 quotes from her, an image caption and a passing mention. That's not enough for GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Mulligan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this footballer; the only sources are a pair of interviews and a YouTube video. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Karr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article certainly looks impressive, but not one of the sources used is significant coverage from an independent reliable source. IMDB and MVDB are user generated and should not be used at all. Allmusic lists everything, so while it may be ok for verification it doesn't get us anywhere for notability. Websites owned or operated by the subject are possibly ok primary sources but again, no use as far as notability. VideoStatic, I'd never heard of but the coverage there is just crediting this person for their role in various projects, there's no depth of coverage about this person.

My own search didn't turn up anything any better. He certainly seems to be prolific in his industry, but somehow apparently has not been the subject of significant coverage. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Film, Visual arts, and Photography. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working commercial photographer, with a too long list of everything they've ever worked on here... Wiki isn't for your CV. I find nothing covering this individual, not even PR items. There just isn't coverage about them. Delete for lack of sourcing. What's used now in the article is primary or simply a name drop... Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources are reliable, and as mentioned in the nom, not SIGCOV. The article is PROMO for a commercial photographer just doing his job. Performing one's job as a creative does not automatically confer notability. I saw on his website a claim that his work was "the subject of an exhibition at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) which gave hope that he might pass NARTIST if he were in the collection and other collections could be found at notable museums or national galleries. However a search of LACMA's collection resulted in nothing, and a basic search of his name on their website revealed no hits at all [31]. Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is interchangeable with an IMDB page... WP:NOTRESUME (if the people in the first AFD were correct in assuming this to maybe be autobiographical.) The fact this survived so long after its first AFD is amazing. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Frew[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of the subject, a Scottish women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The sources provided do not establish notability. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Reeve[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this footballer; the only sources are a pair of interviews with some routine coverage interspersed. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of notability, as it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for biographies.--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 18:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Cushing (poet)[edit]

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

This poet appears to be non-notable under WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. His books of poetry are functionally self-published (Cahuenga Press is a cooperative owned and run by five "poet-members" that exists to publish its owners' work). No substantial reviews of his work appear to be available. I can only find one item of WP:SIGCOV, a local news story. The rest are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or non-independent mentions in affiliated sources (e.g. college magazine). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and Radio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hard to be notable as a poet, but even giving some latitude I don't think this person achieves notability. He has published books of poetry but all of the ones I can find were published by Cahuenga Press of which he is one of the owners. The books aren't widely held in libraries (cf WorldCat). He is an academic but I only found two articles by him and neither had any citations. Lamona (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find sourcing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Even local news doesn't appear to have much coverage of him, and we have no evidence of any kind of distinguished professorial title that might pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dan-Azumi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, the sources are almost entirely routine coverages and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources. Occupying the position of Chief of Staff to the Speaker of a House of Representatives does not make a subject presumptively notable. This subject also fails WP:GNG in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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× ☎ 21:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Smart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

My rationale from the just concluded AfD still stands. The subject fails WP:NPOL, the sources are almost entirely routine coverages and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sources. Occupying the position of Chief of Staff to the Speaker of a House of Representatives does not make a subject presumptively notable. While there is no source to verify the "Senior Special Assistant to the President on Intergovernmental Affairs" position, it also does not makes the subject presumptively notable. This subject also fails WP:GNG in general. This was previously deleted on this ground and was undeleted and moved here again without any improvement. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the political importance of some of these Federal public servant roles in Nigeria isn't grasped here. What we can note is that the appointment of Smart was a news story in itself in various national media, see [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] this source gives indication of how these posts are politically sensitive and fought over. --Soman (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be a cultural/demographic issue. Federal Public service roles are notable and successive roles for someone that has also achieved academically and regularly contributes to the political space should be able to have a wiki profile, lower profiled people do have one. I believe the article was improved upon Dondekojo (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with that comment implying that the role of Federal public servants isn’t grasped. There are several branches of “federal” public services which makes me think saying “federal” public servants are presumptively notable, it opens room for inappropriacy. And Dondekojo, I think you have a COI here which you’re not disclosing. Please do the needful per WP:COIDECLARE so that we’d know where we stand. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying every federal public servant is inherently notable. But in Nigerian politics the Chief of Staff positions are important (in part demonstrated by the fact that their appointments for roles like these are national news in itself). We have to understand that the key posts (like speakers, ministries, etc.) turn into fiefdoms, and where the CoS are movers in negotiations and as such public figures. --Soman (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion under WP:G4: (1) No improvement of previous writing: you cannot recreate the same article without addressing the issues outlined in the previous nom (which was closed as deleted. (2) Notability status has not changed: Between the last nom and this one, definitely he did not just met the requirement outlined in the last discussion. we either respect previous discussion or just re-debate things infinitely with no new substance and that is coming from some one who voted keep last time around. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination effectively withdrawn. Redirects can be handled editorially. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North East Rugby League Regional Division[edit]

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

Trying to tidy up pages on the UK amature structure. Can't seem to find any sources for this or relevant information elsewhere on Wikipedia. Article unreferenced and unvarifyable, WP:TNT may apply. Mn1548 (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby league and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update after 1 week: Page is a mess - Redirect to North East Rugby League Premier Division and rename North East Rugby League. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the !vote count was close, keep editors did not make a compelling case for why the sources they identified should be considered significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Namak Haram[edit]

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

Prod'd by TheTechie - I also couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: .....I DPD it (2h ago, maybe) and added sources and commented "redirect it if you think it's insufficient". But here we are. I personally think coverage is enough to show it's notable. Again, redirect (production/network) might be an option but it seems unnecessary. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Can you please provide policy-based reasons for keeping this page ? — Saqib (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Forced to quote my own !vote then, to satisfy your request: "added sources. (....). I personally think coverage is enough to show it's notable." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy @Mach61:, who reviewed the page at AFC.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will reserve a !vote for now as I am on the fence and hoping someone can opine to clarify. The entire page is made up of brief mentions, non-independent sources, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the EXCEPTION of this, this, and this. What I am wondering is the reliability of these publications. I know there have been questions about Youlin and I lean towards not using it. However, this could be salvaged should the other two found to be reliable publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CNMall41, ProPakistani/Lens is WP:GUNREL. Dawn call it a local blog or a telecom blog. The Express Tribune also called it telecom and IT blog and a technology blog. BBC also called it a Technology blog. In this interview CEO of ProPakistani - who also runs a PR agency - is suggesting that ProPakistani, do accept PRs as part of their content strategy. While PakistaniCinema is clearly a WP:SELFPUB. — Saqib (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. The term "blog" can always be used lightly. What Wikipedia considers a "blog" is sometimes a reliable source. See WP:NEWSBLOG. The question is whether there is editorial oversight. Lens (ProPakistani.pk) has editors listed on the site but no editorial policy that I can find so that is up in the air in my opinion, especially since they accept PR content and I cannot determine which is which as there is nothing I see on the site that distinguishes things apart. The fact that it is itself covered by other news publications (the ones you mentioned above) does tend to lend credibility to the site however, and the domain is 20 years old so it isn't a recent startup set up simply for publicity (such as boxofficeadda.com which had been spamming Wikipedia). PakistaniCinema is seven years old yet I do not see any editorial guidelines there either. There are articles on the site that are marked "Web Desk" so those clearly fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, but there are many that are bylined as well. The problem is the byline is just a name and there is no bio associated with it anywhere on the site which raises a red flag. Maybe these should both go to RSN for opinions. Can anyone point out a few references that ARE easily distinguishable as reliable? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, Wait, many RS even cite the UK's Daily Mail, but does that make Daily Mail a RS? No.. Similarly, just because some Pakistani RS may have cited ProPakistani doesn't automatically mean we assume latter's credibility. So as I said ProPakistani engages in a lot of PR activities. Its owner, Shayan Mahmud, also owns a advertising/PR agency, also raises concerns about the credibility of ProPakistani which IMO operating more like a PR agency than a news website. Anyone could pay them to publish articles. For what it's worth, Lens is an offshoot of ProPakistani, and their brief about us mentions their engagement in publishing celebrity gossip news as well. And did I mention, ProPakistani have a history of publishing fake news for the sake of clicks. That being said, ProPakistani should definitely be taken to the RSN for further evaluation. — Saqib (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read what I wrote. Your comparison to Daily Mail is not in the same realm of what I said. I said it lends credibility, not establishes reliability. And, there are more than Pakistani sources that talk about including this from the BBC which you yourself cited. My point is that a "blog" which is talked about in the media isn't a minor thing. I have a personal blog but it has never been talked about in the media. So again, lends credibility, not reliable. Hence why I said it may be something for the RSN. I would recommend that you as the nominator go to RSN with these and get feedback on the reliability. As far as "Anyone could pay them to publish articles," this is a false statement. We can verify that they allow paid placements, but that doesn't mean that allow anyone to do it or that ALL of the cite is paid. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. There is enough coverage in highly reliable DAWN ([38], [39], [40]), [41]). Youlin (online magazine focused on Pakistani culture-related topics) article was written by Saman Khalid. Category:Online magazines with defunct print editions is the future and there is no requirement for a publication to run print edition to be considered as reilable. On a side note, Saqib's AfDs are unfortunately borderline problematic and are deterring editors from participating. They are quickly losing credibility, and if this deletionist behavior continues—dismissing legitimate sources with terms like WP:ROTM despite clear reliability with proper bylines—admin sanctions/TBAN may soon be necessary. 2A04:4A43:894F:FFA2:9DD1:4FF1:C856:2226 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello IP - the provided coverage from Dawn is clearly ROTM - published in their routine THE WEEK THAT WAS section, which typically provides brief profiles for each and every TV series. Additionally, all four coverage provided are authored by the same author Sadaf Haider and same publication DAWN, and per GNG, multiple references from the same publication and author count as a ONE SINGLE source. So fails GNG. Regarding coverage in Youline, concerns about its reliability have been mentioned by @CNMall41 above therefore, it is advisable not to use it as a source to establish GNG (although it may be used for WP:V purpose). Regarding your remarks about my "borderline problematic" AFDs and suggesting admin sanctions/TBAN against me does imply evasion of block - recently applied to some WP:UPEs sockfarms. It's really unfair to call someone "deletionist" who created thousands of BLPs. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again problematic AFD by the same nominator. Clearly WP:Before is not done. Alot of sources are available on google like [42] [43] [44], [45], [46], [47]. All of them are reliable publications which no one can challenge but despite that, @Saqib decided to take this to AfD. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, All of the coverage you provided just mentioned the TV series as WP:Trivial mentions. And except for this coverage in BBC Urdu, none of the coverage provided even has even a byline, so clearly WP:CHURNALISM style coverage and even fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fwiw, the BBC Urdu coverage is based on an interview with the TV series actor so it is not independent of the subject as well. None of this coverage you provided should be suitable for establishing GNG because none is sig/in-depth. GNG requires strong sourcing so merely presenting a collection of news articles does not really help. As usual, you're calling my AFD problematic, but why don't you look at your own AfD stats? You only cast "keep" votes without providing policy-based rationales. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did'nt you indirectly called me problematic here [48] [49] i had done WP:Before initiating that AFD & resultantly that article was deleted. Anyways, we need to focus on this AFD, WP:Trivial mentions & WP:CHURNALISM are an essay not a policy & there is not even a single consensus that these sources comes under WP:NEWSORGINDIA & if there is then please provide evidence. You are rejecting all of the reliable sources just because you consider them unreliable despite The Express Tribune has all the article dedicated to this serial and its actor. Namak Haram conveys a powerful message about the consequences of exploiting others. In BBC its mentioned The nuances of Murid's character in the drama serial 'Namak Haram' make him unique. He is not at all like the butler, housekeeper or servant seen in typical TV dramas. Why would BBC or The Express Tribune includes interviews or provide coverage of the show which according to you is non notable. Are both of them paid coverage? will you please provide evidence one by one as to how these six reliable sources are not valid? Libraa2019 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In assessing source quality, especially for GNG criteria, it's important to apply WP:COMMONSENSE because we do not always have to rely on evidences to prove that coverage is paid, CHURNALISM or fails under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Rather, the key consideration is whether the provided coverage meets the high standards of WP:SIGCOV. If there are still doubts, allow me to analyze each source thoroughly for further clarification. --Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Saqib
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2447954/im-still-learning-imran-ashraf-explores-new-horizons-in-latest-work	~ Express Tribune is an independent RS- but this particular coverage is based on an interview	This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established	The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail	✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873125-sarah-khan-imran-ashraf-to-steal-spotlight-once-again-with-namak-haram	~ Samaa is an independent source but this particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI	This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established	The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION	✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1154533/imran-ashrafs-discovery-at-mazaq-raat-sings-namak-haram-ost/	~ Daily Times is an independent source but particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI	This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established	The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION	✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/767358-Sarah-Khan-reveals-why-she-chose-%E2%80%98Namak-Haram%E2%80%99	~ Dunya News is an independent source but particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI	This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established	The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION	✘ No
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1129132/imran-ashraf-and-sarah-khans-reunion-in-new-drama-leaves-fans-enthralled/	~ Daily Times is an independent source but particular coverage has no by-line, so CHURNALISM style and falls under WP:RSNOI	This coverage has no by-line, so the expertise of its author has not been established	The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or even in detail - TRIVIAL MENTION	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/articles/c3g2n49709ro	~ BBC Urdu is an independent RS source but this particular coverage is based on interview	Coverage has by-line and the author is a journalist	The source doesn't discuss the subject directly or in detail	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1818732	DAWN is an independent RS source	Coverage has by-line and the author is a journalist	The source doesn't discuss the subject in detail - Routine coverage in their THE WEEK THAT WAS section, which typically publish brief profiles for each and every TV series	✘ 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)).

- Saqib, You forgot to mention, this table is your assumptions or consensus that you judged and rejected all of them. DAWN, a respectable Pakistani newpaper also provide coverage of subject https://www.dawn.com/news/1818732 and WP:Commonsense does'nt tell to assume every reliable source & author as unreliable or objectionable and the subject is not even a BLP but still you are putting so much efforts in its deletion by rejecting all the reliable sources. Furthermore, Its not necessary to respond each comment of opponent party. Please invite other editors or atleast wait for others. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Libraa2019, Regarding DAWN coverage, I've already addressed my concerns above. Clearly WP:ROTM. Its not necessary to respond each comment of opponent party. Same applies to you, I guess. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saqib, depends on history, i only responded your queries and one more thing i would like to mention, WP:ROTM is an essay, not a guideline, you are using this essay to prove your point & adjusting other essays on every reliable source rejection accordingly whereas notability guidelines other than BLP are not that much strict.

- - - You told me somewhere that WP:NTV is an essay and not a guideline but throwing your opinions on AFD's on the basis of essays only. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Libraa2019, Notability guidelines other than BLP are not that much strict Are you serious? I'd strongly suggest you to please familiarize yourself with our P&G again. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        General principles states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It nowhere mention such things which you mentioned in table. Also you have ignored my other query, You told me somewhere that WP:NTV is an essay and not a guideline but sharing your opinions on AFD's on the basis of essays only. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Libraa2019, You've mentioned multiple times that the topic is notable due to significant coverage. However, you haven't provided any sources or coverage to demonstrate this. I ask again you to please provide specific references that show in-depth and significant coverage to support the notability of the topic, or simply STOP repeating the claim without evidence. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Saqib's SA table, which summarizes the state of the sourcing quite well. Most of the sources are WP:RSNOI upon further inspection. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was created by 59.103.218.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and then heavily edited by several IP ranges such as 223.123.5.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 223.123.10.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 223.123.10.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 223.123.15.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 154.81.247.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - all of them blocked due to UPE sock farms and all related to our prolific sock master Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nauman335.Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Just curious if G5 applies in this case? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. The speedy criteria are all for uncontroversial deletions. As soon as someone opposes deletion in good faith, speedy deletion is no longer an option. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Leaving my comment bolded earlier in the discussion but leaving an official delete !vote here. Basing this off the source assessment table, although I still think it would be a good idea to get the few I mentioned earlier to the reliable source noticeboard so we do not run into arguments about these in the future. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CNMall41, We've already discussed some of these sources at WP:RSN, but it seems not all editors in this AfD are acknowledging those cpncensus calling them "minimalist discussion". And this led to repeated debates about source reliability in AFDs which is time-consuming.Do we have a way to ensure the consensus from WP:RSN is respected in this AfDs? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to keep repeating what I have already stated previously. There are some that have not been to the RSN (look at my bolded "Comment" section from a few days ago).--CNMall41 (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 18:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TriTech Software Systems[edit]

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

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing I found other than brief entries on sites that list companies is this, and it is about how this company/software using a separate bit of software for customer service. It does include some info about the company but I don't think it meets NCORP. As mentioned on the talk page, most of the sources in the article have gone 404. I'll check back to see if anyone finds good sources. Lamona (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that this source from the article is still live and is not bad, but still probably not near NCORP. Lamona (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton[edit]

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

Reasoning: Other AfDs including for the multi-list AfD against Damon Hill Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill have established the precedent that these lists are both WP:CRUFT and fail WP:LISTN as being needless forks of existing lists, they also have no notable group or set presence within discussions as shown by a lack of these such sources in the articles. Discussion also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen centres on the WP:NOTSTATS argument. Consensus exists that such lists are not notable, and on the argument for the Verstappen AfD is clearly made that such lists regardless of win number are not considered notable. This deletion request is to reflect the latest consensus. The same discussion has also been ongoing on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Formula One and Talk:Max Verstappen

When creating this deletion request, articles

Should also be included for the same reasons. It is the second AfD request for the Senna article, the original is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. I would appreciate if someone could create this AfD as it is important for the motorsport category and part of wider ongoing discussions (please if I am unable to can this be added to the motorsport project AfD)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination by IP: 159.242.125.170 (talk)

I vote delete per the discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Damon Hill and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Max Verstappen — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Lists. — Iadmc ♫^talk 15:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed this nomination to actually use ((subst:afd2)), rather than just ((la)) on its own. No opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all bases on the current consensus on this subject which follows WP:CFORK and WP:LISTN.T v x1 01:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The main difference between these drivers and the other subjects which were deleted is that these are all three-or-more-time World Champions who should be expected to have more wins and coverage than the others. I would personally reject WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments such as those raised by the nom and above delete !voters that these drivers fall under a consensus based on the others. If these are kept, I would also support looking at taking the Verstappen list to DRV for recreation. The main difference between now the the Verstappen AfD is that he too is now a three-time World Champion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @159.242.125.170:, you need to tag all of the articles you wish to bundle, not just notify on the talk pages. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will try, very hard to do multi-page AfDs properly as an unregistered user my apologies!

I agree that Verstappen is more notable than at the time of his AfD, but the fundamental issue is that we have no way of currently defining notability. If this AfD fails, hopefully it can set that precedent, if it doesn't then we know the issue is with the format not having proven notability.

You cite these are WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments, but I counter that I do not point to them being deleted and say that because they were deleted these should be - instead I am pointing to the logic behind them and the comments on the AfDs where many explicitly called for an AfD against these lists also. The arguments against all of these lists were made in those AfDs, hence why I have referenced them. I do believe there should be some level of consistency in how these lists exist, and if this AfD fails I will propose the creation of any articles which would logically follow (if it is three time champions, I will try and create lists for them, if it is drivers who have X number of wins, same again) but I'm not sure that these pass WP:CRUFT , WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS.

The size of the grouping doesn't mean it necessitates a list - Wikipedia doesn't need a list of the list of winners of your local egg and spoon race no matter how good Mr Eggman is as the 12 time champion. Unless we can show that these articles pass WP:LISTN - "Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists."

If we could get 3 sources for each driver where a reliable third party, such as a newspaper of record or the like, was discussing their wins (be it listing the drivers' dominance across those, or be it ranking some of their wins perhaps?) than I would be willing to concede WP:LISTN .

Also I wish to note, Draft:List_of_Formula_One_Grand_Prix_wins_by_Max_Verstappen was denied just 2 weeks before his 3rd title, so I'm not sure that has had an impact on my claimed consensus so far.

I also remind the guidelines on WP:OTHERSTUFF do state:

"If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." 159.242.125.170 (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, firstly, I am disappointed that the nominator did not follow recommend courtesy, and notify substantial contributors to these articles, as suggested (but not required) in the AfD process. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for causing your disappointment, but sadly I am not very well accustomed with the process and tried to reach out to people who had been involved in such suggestions in previous AfDs. I hope personal disappointment will not factor into this however. 159.242.125.170 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(also, Wikipedia:Please bite the newbies I hope I am tasty ) 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the wins by these drivers are extremely notable. Using Senna as an example: whenever another driver approaches and passes his total it is reported as a significant achievement in the press Formula1.com, Sky Sports for example. While these win are listed in the parent articles, that is only as part of their complete Formula 1 racing results, and does not give the level of detail of these articles. These lists allow interested readers to compare and contrast those victories. The lists meet the criteria for a Stand-alone list, given the length of the parent articles. The articles follows a similar style and structure to standalone lists such as List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney, List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar and List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu. I'm well aware that WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to be avoided, but the presence of these articles demonstrates that lists such as these are common across the encyclopedia, and form part of the current 'meta'. With regards to the WP:NOTSTATS argument; that says that the encyclopedia should not have "excessive listings of unexplained statistics": indeed, I would suggest that by having these as standalone lists means that we are better able to provide the suitable context to avoid them being "unexplained statistics": many of the tables in the "Racing records" sections of drivers articles are more in contravention of that particular guideline than these articles, in my opinion. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your argument for keeping Senna, but few other drivers are used in such a way. As I discussed earlier in this thread, if we can find sources for these lists to be notable as a set as you have done for Senna then that may warrant their inclusion on WP:LISTN - and I would agree that the racing record section can be overwhelming but without much intention to suggest they should be removed.

As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'm not sure how useful it is because for example Rooney has many independent sources referencing the goals as a set. I can't say I've seen the same for Prost, maybe not even for any driver outside of Senna. Other than the fact it is a very long list, the group of Hamilton's impressive tally is rarely talked about at which point I would compare it to creating an article of "Letters in antidisestablishmentarianism" which is impressive because the list is so long, but aside from that, is not notable. This is an extreme but still, just because other WikiProjects have done something doesn't mean Formula One should for example. It also raises the question as to what the notability criteria should be, if we are to keep these: what level of notability makes Prost worth keeping? 159.242.125.170 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These lists might allow readers to compare and contrast their victories, but not in any meaningful way. The lack any of the context required to be able to take any meaningful insight (which is why WP:NOSTAT is mentioned). The margin and grid position columns are the NOSTAT violations. The rest of the columns also exist in their racing record summary. And it may vollow the style and structure for the article you listed for Rooney, Tendulkar or Lomu but the major difference is that these wins can be viewed in the articles for the respective drivers (as you acknowledge in the third sentence of your response, the same can not be said for Rooney, Tendulkar or Lomu. SSSB (talk) 22:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, ladmc and Tvx1. These all are best integrated in main articles. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - just repeating data already presented at the home article of the driver in the career results sections. --Falcadore (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - they are all valid WP:SIZESPLITs of their respective articles, keeping said articles from being too hard to navigate and read. Merging all should also be considered by delete !voters, especially since SpacedFarmer's rationale is basically a merge !vote, not a delete !vote. But again, we're risking making these articles too long and clunky (per WP:NOMERGE). The LISTCRUFT essay does not apply here when these are split from their respective articles, not standalone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not valid sizesplits, because they were not split. You are the only person who has suggested that we should be merging, mainly because those arguning for deletion (as far as I can tell by skimming the arguemnts) feel that the level of detail these articles go into (i.e. with grid positions and margin of victory) are in violation of WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOSTATS regardless of whether they are in their own article, or in the general article about that driver. The listcruft essay does apply because this was split from the respective articles. SSSB (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Germany, England, and Brazil. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of them are the same as the many other such articles for sports people. Category:Career achievements of sportspeople If it won't fit in their main article, then a split off article is justified. We do the same when listing the accomplishments of actors and musicians, if their awards don't all fit in their main article, you make a side article to list them. Dream Focus 22:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the accomplishment of thier race wins does fit in the main article, it is bundlged together with a breakdown of their results. The only unique information of the nominated pages is FANCRUFT and NOSTAT violations with a summary of their results (and by extention wins) accessible in the main articles. SSSB (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These are all redundant forks of information already found at the main articles for these subjects. Let'srun (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the articles of the respective drivers already break-down their races wins in a much cleaner and succinct way - through the race record table (e.g. Lewis Hamilton#Complete Formula One results). The nominated articles do nothing other than specify minor details. The only parts of these articles which are unique to these articles (i.e. not already specified on the main driver page) are: date, circuit, grid position and margin which are all either WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOSTAT or both (e.g. margin and grid position lack any of the context required for this information to be worth anything meaningful. These articles serve no purpose other than to offer irrelevant and/or contextless data. SSSB (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of California, San Diego#Student life. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35DG-D[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They had a license, they stopped operating and they fail WP:GNG. Merging to the mother-university is the best option. The Banner talk 07:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Contray to what the IP said, we no longer keep television stations articles just because the station is licenced by the FCC, based on this 2021 RfC. All we have here are some FCC licenses, which don't qualify as SIGCOV. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems to be the consensus to keep in light of new sources, though other keep arguments are weaker. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Engel[edit]

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

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

No real indication of notability, only sources are routine 'match reports' on poker news sites and a stats database. No rule about number of bracelets won to determine notability. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Games, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was previously created by blocked user, deleted, then re-deleted as G5. New article is fresh and not a G5 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on potential impact I will not disagree about there not being a rule about what is notable in the poker community around here but there is much inconsistency. If Engel is deemed not to be notable, then probably at least over half of legacy poker articles on here need to be wiped. I noticed the nominator's other tagged deletions, which I agree with because they do not bring much to the table. Bracelets are considered the gold standard in the poker community and three is nothing to scoff at. The circuit rings record alone should warrant merit but that is justm y opinion. Major titles won, money earned, or major impact historically on pop culture through the game should be what merits a player's notability in my opinion. It would be nice to have a set standard on what is deemed worthy so time on improvements is not wasted. Red Director (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have been around the poker community on here for years so although it would be sad to lose legacy articles, some of these do not warrant merit existance at all if this is the standard we want to place. Engel has more accomplishments of note than most of these on a quick glance. Red Director (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"major impact historically on pop culture through the game" - surely someone has described that impact. Then, it's just a matter of writing down who that person was, and we have a source that contributes to notability. The thing we can't do, on the other hand, is that one of us, a Wikipedia user, is the one who discerns the cultural impact. It has to be verified by another party. Geschichte (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Engel definetly does not check the box of culturally impactful poker player lol. The only things that maybe make sense for the article being retained are his accomplishments which gulf many other players here who do not even come close to that pedigree. I do not care if this article stays or leaves personally. Existing articles make a case for keeping is all I am saying. Red Director (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Existing articles make a case for keeping is a WP:WHATABOUTISM. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article to have more information, references, and an external link section. I personally did not think he warranted an article based on what is considered to relevant in this day and age of poker, but he is close in my opinion. One more WSOP bracelet puts in him in a good class of player in the modern age. However, poker is a funny game. He could win his next tournament or never win another one. It seems the fact that a previously blocked user made this page seems to be what put Engel's article on a deletion path when it is not deserved based on what has been allowed to be on here. It just seems odd that we are drawing the line here on this one page when there are plenty of untargeted articles on players who have not done anything of note in one or two decades where their only major accomplishments came during 2003-2007's poker boom. I fully expect this page to be deleted though so no worries if that is the consensus. Red Director (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is still WP:WHATABOUTISM. If you know of other articles that don't measure up, then please nominate them for deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, I found this [50], a primary source where the subject talks about himself. I still don't see enough in RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Red Director. The bracelets merits inclusion alone but then there's also the record holding of circuit rings (17). Atleast the main events at each circuit tour stop is pro-amateur. There's also a million plus score in a highly regarded event. PsychoticIncall (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of those satisfy our requirements for notability per WP:NBIO. Please read WP:SIRS and respond with WP:THREE references that each meet the requirements detailed in SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG [51][52][53][54][55] Also, the two newspaper.com clippings are from the same article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep while the directory listings don't help, there is plenty of sourcing in the article that counts toward WP:N (unless PokerNews isn't a reliable source for some reason, then the numbers drop a lot). Hobit (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided by WikiOriginal-9. One of the newspaper clippings is broken, though. Not sure why. By the way, we also have a dewiki article on this fellow – I've now connected the languages via Wikidata. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilly Braimoh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of any notability. The BFI source which would have been useful returns a 404 error. The other from IMDB is unreliable. Searches reveal very little, certainly nothing that adds to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the archived version of the BFI dead link. Lubal (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. However, having seen the source, it does not actually add anything to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book briefly confirms that he grew up in foster care. This news article briefly says he attended Croydon College (not in the article) and did "Dilly Dines Out" (not cited in the article). Overall, I'm not finding many sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior AfD discussion ended in soft delete, so I would like to get a bit more input and get firm consensus to delete or keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, article stand on only one source! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ali Khan (subedar)[edit]

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

Outside of a road being named after this person in an Indian town, I can find nothing to indicate this person meets notability guidelines. Even looking up the naming of the road seems to have been done at the request of the foundation created by his immediate family. The page has been consistently edited by members of the family and those admitting to clear COIs. Article is an orphan as well. Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides the coverage in the Indian times, I could not find any other coverage to justify inclusion per WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage to be found and the page has no sources with any indepth coverage. Subject is not notable to warranted a page. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vega Expedition. Owen× ☎ 21:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at the Chukchi Peninsula[edit]

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

Seems like a non-event where the vast majority of the page is about things before and after which are largely unrelated to the skirmish. A misunderstanding, some shots, no casualties, that's it. A very minor episode in the Vega Expedition, not even mentioned there until you added the "see also" for it. Fram (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Russia, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if it was re-named to "Stay at the chukchi peninsula" Dencoolast33 (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer "Incident at the Chukchi peninsula" skirmish might exaggerate the events while "Incident" does not. Gvssy (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the name doesn't solve the lack of notability; the whole incident isn't even mentioned in the first source, a description of the expedition[56]. Nor is it described in the more extensive second source about the expedition[57]. I can't find it at page 10 of the third source[58], which was the page given as the reference. It seems to appear at page 19, where one crew member describes it, while the "skirmish" is missing from the diaries of two other crew members who just say that they encountered the local people. Fram (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, shots were fired at the Chukchis. However, page 19 of [59] suggests – to me at least – that the shot was fired (probably in the air) to restore order either while, or before, the Chukchis were aboard. In that case, it would probably not be seen a skirmish or anything alike. The citation "Nordenskiöld (1880)" leads me nowhere to confirm; is a proper skirmish described in there? If not, I'll support the removal of the article (while some information could be moved to Vega Expedition). Imonoz (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it'd be entirely possible to write an encyclopdic article on the interactions/relationship between the Vega expeditions and the Chukchis who came into contact with it. There's the scholarly article by Åsa Olovsson, thirty pages focused on this topic, as well as other work. But the skirmish in itself is a very brief mention there, mentioned more or less in passing. I think there's a good foundation here, and that this article can be kept – but that it would be necessary to broaden the topic to the general relationship between the involved Swedes and Chukchis rather than this brief interaction. /Julle (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vega Expedition. The parent article gives the relevant background information and is currently very short. Merging this information there will improve it. If the parent article expands significantly, then this can be again split to a separate article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Vega Expedition. Procyon117 (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoralty of John Moran[edit]

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

No justification for creating this page. Most of it is copied without attribution from other pages across Wikipedia (in violation of WP:CWW). The page for John Moran himself was created just yesterday, if that ever gets too long, per WP:SIZE guidelines, we can consider a split. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV and WP:TOOSOON. The titular subject (the "Mayoralty of John Moran") has not yet commenced/occurred. And there has been zero coverage of that topic as a subject in its own right. As noted, if Moran's future activities (and coverage of those activities) becomes too much to be covered in the biographical article, then we can split it. Otherwise it is far (far far) WP:TOOSOON to have a standalone title like this. WP:ATDs (like incubation as draft or redirection to the brand new bio article) seem unnecessary and less-than-appropriate. Guliolopez (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The editing of this new user - Chancellorship - seems to be very similar to that of the blocked user - Quayshires/Cartoons2022/BreadSuperFan36/WeenieSquirrel61 - I wonder if it is worth opening an SPI? Spleodrach (talk) 14:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m working off my mobile, and was planning to do so when I was on my laptop later. I was suspicious of that before this new article creation, I’m convinced of it now. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a sockpuppet investigation yesterday on this. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Useless fork and the position has not even started yet. Barring anything out of the ordinary, give the fellow a chance to actually do something in the position before creating an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unnecessary creation by a new editor. This title shouldn't even be a redirect to John Moran (Mayor of Limerick). Walsh90210 (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 EBay#Criticisms and controversies. Clear consensus that this is article is inappropriate per WP:CRITS. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 12:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of eBay[edit]

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

Duplicates the content at eBay#Criticism, goes against the advice at WP:CRITS to not generally create separate articles for criticism in particular. The sourcing, meanwhile, shows examples of individual instances of criticism, bu does not cohesively discuss "criticism of eBay" as a topic. This should redirect to eBay#Criticism, as already previously proposed by way of WP:BLAR. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Mostly it's crap, and the small non-crap part belongs in the main article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per nomination, topic doesn't need a separate article. Artem.G (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. DigitalIceAge (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to eBay#Criticism per nom. and others. Sal2100 (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Norwegian School of Economics. ^Complex/_Rational 18:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Choice Lab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion 10 years ago but didn't really address the lack of reliable sources covering this research group (the few that were linked to just mention it in passing). Also not addressed was the fact that the entire article was a copy-and-paste of the official media release, which makes this self-promotion. In 10 years the article has gotten no content edits or inbound links, so it's still that official release word-for-word. The Choice Lab seems to have largely rebranded as something else but I still can't find any real sources actually about it. Details like who founded it and who the members are, what its funding is and who provides that funding, where it's specifically located - the core of an encyclopedia article on this topic would be - it just doesn't seem to exist in reliable sources. Combined with a decade and no real encyclopedia editing occurring on the article makes me think this just isn't an encyclopedia topic. Perhaps it should redirect to Norwegian School of Economics but I didn't want to do that unilaterally. Here2rewrite (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as proposed. I agree with your analysis. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Searches reveal little or no secondary coverage that suggest this lab is notable. Malinaccier (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Demoscene#List of demoparties. Malinaccier (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

X (demoparty)[edit]

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The name of the event makes it more difficult to search. I was only able to find mentions, such as "One of the most traditional and largest events still running today is demoparty X, a specific event for the Commodore 64 platform with the first edition held in 1995 in the Netherlands (POLGáR, 2016)." (machine translated from Portuguese) in a paper about the demoscene in Brazil. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties.

Edit: X is also discussed in Freax: The Brief History of the Demoscene, Volume 1 (2005) by Tamás Polgár:

"The great meeting events of the Commodore 64 scene in the second half of the nineties were the great international demoparties: The Party in Denmark, Assembly in Finland, and mainly the German Mekka Symposium and Breakpoint. These parties, in addition to the great annual X parties organized by Success & The Ruling Company. For the first time, in 1995, this party was held in Utrecht, Netherlands but moved several times to different cities. Some still remember X’95 as the best X party, and later X parties as the best parties of C64 scene history. Interestingly enough the X still takes place every year. In 1997 the party united with Takeover, and became a multiplatform party under X-Takeover label but the cool oldschool atmosphere was broken by Amiga and PC users, so the cooperation split up. X is still the largest Commodore-only demoparty."

. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Video games, Visual arts, Events, Computing, and Netherlands. toweli (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties as an WP:AtD. --Mika1h (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umpiring in the 1946–47 Ashes series[edit]

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

My fourth afd in this Anglo-Australian cricket fancruft deletion drive I have taken on. We have articles on cricket umpiring, seriously? I dont believe this should exist on Wikipedia, and I also am against a merge because all that really needs to happen is a mention of this on the respective tour pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, England, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What policy-based reasons are there for deletion? There certainly seem to be enough independent sources to meet GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We'd delete an article about the Umpiring of Angel Hernandez because that simply isn't grounds for a good article outside 'he's terrible and here's why', which is what this series of articles is equivalent to. Yeah, it's packed with sources, but this isn't a proper article style at all (they read more like a retrospective episode of First Take) and belongs on a cricket-focused wiki, certainly not here. Nate • (chatter) 23:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary WP:CFORKs that are mostly POV controversy articles, so nothing worth merging into main articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pharaoh496, Nate and Joseph2302 sum up my feelings about such articles completely. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All incidences of controversial umpiring are covered in the main article, making these unnecessary WP:CFORKs. AA (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOPAGE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch 2(Focus)[edit]

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

Not sure if WP:R3 applies, but this is for a topic that's only been discussed but has no official announcement and only cites an article based on "a rumour". I'm not sure what the "Focus" is, but "Nintendo Switch 2(Focus)" is missing a space. This is not a casual type-o someone would make. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. It's indeed too soon, and right now, the "Successor console" section of the Nintendo Switch article is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already a draft, in better shape, at Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console. Sergecross73 msg me 17:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, it's not even enough for a viable article right now and the name is not believable as a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL and TOOSOON. Probably SNOW too, since this has already been discussed before. It's not even announced yet. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. All we have is a supposed "leak" right now. Leaks are not reliable in the slightest. Suggest a WP:SNOW close. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 17:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure speculation, no need to move to drafts since we have Draft:Unnamed Nintendo console. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah DELET IT QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we WP:SNOW close this? It pains to have this false info published in the mainspace, but there's so little there that it's impossible to clean up. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to keep this article, the draft mentioned above by Sergecross73 is way better; in my opinion, WP:FUTURE and WP:SNOW can close this really fast. MK at your service. 12:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Windsor (businessman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NCRIC. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cricket, and England. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple search seems to bringing up GNG passing coverage such as this. Looks to be plenty out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is out of date. He's no longer at Aviva. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been updated. JP (Talk) 10:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Rugbyfan22 and recent expansion. AA (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Animaker[edit]

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

I'm doubting that the software is notable based on the sources cited. -- Beland (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USNews lists it as "Best Basic Web-Based Animation Software", which is something, I guess Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find tutorials on how to use the software, nothing about critical reviews or discussions in RS. None of the sources in the article now are RS, some appear to be PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Discworld#"Mapps". (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death's Domain[edit]

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

No reviews or commentary found after a search, one or two passing mentions, and a single sentence in an article from The Canberra Times found on ProQuest: "A minor Pratchett Discworld spin-off is to be found in Death's Domain (Corgi, 27pp, $14.95), by Pratchett and Paul Kidby, which is essentially a Discworld map of Death's house, garden and golf course. Only for Pratchett completists.", which is not enough to sustain its own article.

Could probably be redirected to another Discworld article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Discworld and the Disciplines, p. 63 (and a bit on 59) has almost a page of coverage, The Magic of Terry Pratchett has brief commentary on how it did not sell so well, Reactor Magazine has a sentence of commentary on the fictional location of Death's Domain. So with The Canberra Times that may just be enough to write a non-stubby article, fullfilling WP:WHYN. It might also be little enough to merge, and the obvious target would be Discworld#"Mapps", for the time being. For something as weighty as the Discworld series this individual commentary might be a bit much, though. A good solution could be to spin that section out into an article covering all the Discworld Mapps (Discworld and the Disciplines also has more to say on the other Mapps, and I am sure there is more commentary out there), but such an article does not yet exist. Daranios (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Daranios. Sources exist that can verify that the books also exist but still no SIGCOV. There are multiple Discworld map articles that could be merged together into a single article but Discworld#"Mapps" is a preferred choice. Jontesta (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. I don't see that a merger has been attempted and contested, and suggest that would likely not have been contested. This may be a candidate for a SNOW merge if others agree. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens The reason I send things to AfD instead of PROD or merging them myself is the hope that people will find sources. Sure it probably wouldn't have been contested but I find you get a more fair result with AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn, sources found to pass NBOOK (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism (book)[edit]

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

I feel like there should be reviews for this book, but I am unable to find more than one, which I have added to the article after an extensive search. My search was confused by the fact that the author has written eleven books, all of which have the word Fascism in the title, and also a journal called Fascism. This one is just titled Fascism, which makes searching for sources a nightmare, but I did try.

If there is not another review, redirect to author Roger Griffin. If there is another substantial one I can withdraw. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: As you mentioned, finding reviews for this books was extremely annoying, and it doesn't help that there was another author with first name Roger writing about facism at the time, but I did manage to find one other review from the London Review of Books. I would've preferred more coverage on the book itself, but that's all I could find. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 Nice. There's probably more in the sea of dozens of similarly named books, but two decently lengthy ones is enough for NBOOK. I can withdraw this then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, was unbale to find enough reviews on google.com and bing.com (HeritageGuardian (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Star Trek technical manuals. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise[edit]

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

I have found no mentions of this book that aren't passing mentions in publications about Star Trek. Enough to verify that the book exists, but not much else. There's probably a good merge/redirect target somewhere but I can't think of one. Author Lora Johnson, maybe? PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Star Trek technical manuals as WP:Alternative to deletion as suitable target for a topic which does not fullfill the notability requirements but does appear in a number of secondary sources (e.g. TV Zone #22, with a minor comment on canonicity beyond acknowledging its pure existence). Daranios (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The book exists and has some mentions. Without SIGCOV it can be listed at List of Star Trek technical manuals as an alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be a stand-alone article. It's unclear to me whether any information other than the title should be included at List of Star Trek technical manuals, no preference between an attempt to merge content and a redirect to a one-line entry on that page. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. This article is suitable for Memory Alpha or the Great Link. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saimir Kasemi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject made two appearances in the German fifth tier in 2007 but it appears they have made no professional appearances at all. A web search finds a few articles about an ice cream parlour they have been running after their retirement. But there's no WP:SIGCOV relating to their football career. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no evidence of any further professional career, lacks WP:SIGCOV. Waqar💬 16:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Ferguson[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, only sources are a database, a blog, and a local interview about the club, not an article about her. Fram (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 07:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ward Thomas Removals[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGSIG. The FT article is an interview with the founder. Wikilover3509 (talk) 6:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed spacing in the header that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is also a 2013 Telegraph "SME Library" item [60] but is also more a profile piece about the company founder. A firm going about its business but I am not seeing the claim to notability and the detailed coverage needed. AllyD (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gomora (kaiju)[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the prose above. I wouldn't even have it re-direct because the character is so obscure there isn't even mention of them on the Ultraman article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google search reveals no significant coverage from any reliable source. In fact, there's barely coverage from unreliable sources either, outside of marketing material. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Smith (rower)[edit]

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

~~Not notable. I have been unable to find enough reliable references. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Bibliographies, and New Zealand. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reconsidered this nomination and now believe the subject is probably notable. TheSwamphen (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A silver medal at the Empire Games should make him notable. Bduke (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that he’s notable. TheSwamphen, as long as nobody has !voted "delete". you can withdraw an AfD. Schwede 66 19:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator TheSwamphen (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that since this next election "is notable and almost certain to happen", there's sufficient coverage for this article to pass GNG at this time. Even the nominator is convinced and has changed their position during discussion. Any issues of naming can be resolved via normal requested move process. BusterD (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Assam Legislative Assembly election[edit]

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

WP:NCRYSTAL. Nothing about the election has been declared yet, no WP:RS are currently talking about it. Should be recreated closer to the election, once actual sources start discussing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Soni (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Assam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the second AfD on this topic. I previously nominated this article, and the consensus was to keep it. I continue to support the previous decision. For reference: Previous discussion.Hitro talk 22:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Next elections pass WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure what makes this one different. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I waited for the 2 other AFDs from this month to close, just to be sure this was not a one-off of me misevaluating Crystal. But mainly -

If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2044 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

I searched and found no sources talking about the election. I didn't find any consensus about next elections in any notability guidelines I could see. I found 5 (+2) AFDs that suggested deletion is the correct approach, and just 1 that didn't.

This topic also needs a talk page notification and/or a higher level consensus established somewhere (I don't know where), otherwise each AFD will end at a different inconsistent place. But until I see such higher level consensus, my read of both Crystal and prior consensus says it's pretty clear it should be a delete. Soni (talk) 23:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, there is already coverage of this election: [61] [62] along with articles about new delineation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that Hindu article (published 5 days ago) is definitely talking directly about the elections.

I disagree on the livemint article, it's not coverage of the elections as much as just "BJP leader stated something about Hindu-Muslim divide in Congress". It's not significant, and they only mention it as a "in a few years".

I missed a couple other articles on my before check - [63] [64] so I do agree there is significant enough coverage for the election. Soni (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many of these future prediction pages. WP:TOOSOON. Way down in the future and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor is it a collection of unverifiable content. RangersRus (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note - There are 5 connected AFDs in this - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Kerala Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Manipur Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. This didn't seem to meet MULTIAFD as each of them are at a different level of RS reporting, but the general question (Is it CRYSTAL) would still apply. Soni (talk) 02:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a date has been set for each of these, then they should each be moved to reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess I support keeping this article now. See above comment. Coverage is now significant enough. Soni (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !vote balance at this time is leaning keep, although I will note that most of the connected AfDs noted above this relist have since been closed as consensus for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In established democracies, the next election is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAl. Sourcing and existing information is sufficient. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's just not enough here for an election that is almost two years off; the only substance is the date itself. Failing that, it should be moved to 2026 Assam Legislative Assembly election since this has a set date. Mangoe (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion since the previous list has not cleared things up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per comments Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More policy based input would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by SportingFlyer and Soni show that this meets item 1 of CRYSTAL – this election is notable and almost certain to take place. Toadspike [Talk] 04:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too much original research here and the title is inappropriate. Whilst there may be sources for notability I don't believe the current article is viable it's pretty much complete OR without any sourcing. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the next election following a long series of notable elections, it should exist, to be a collection of reliable information on it as that information arises. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC) If not kept, Draftify. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus on whether this article meets the standards discussed in WP:NCRIME and WP:NEVENT. Malinaccier (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Jonathan Lewis[edit]

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

Coverage is not sustained and significant enough to justify this article about the manslaughter of a teen. Zanahary (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm counting 10 reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV covering this event. I think some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP are warranted, but the young age and the alleged exceptional viciousness of the alleged perpetrators do make the event more than a run-of-the-mill killing. Ultimately, since there's WP:NODEADLINE, I think that at this juncture it makes sense to keep and circle back if it turns out that the notability was temporary.

Melmann 07:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think a crime's "exceptional viciousness" holds any weight over WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Nevada. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage past the event in November, no lasting notability. Sad event, appears to be only a news item at this point. NOTNEWS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Unusual amount of international coverage on this one - being picked up by the BBC. My answer comes down to WP:PERP's description of coverage of notable victims and the focus of coverage being on the event or the individual. I feel on balance, the event is covered as news much more than the victim's role is covered as a subject of personal interest. BrigadierG (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the incident has received nationwide coverage, I've found at least 15 reliable sources for the article. I'm in agreement with @Melmann, considering the young age of the victim and brutality of this crime this is beyond ordinary even for a murder. There's not so much coverage after November, but this will probably change in the future as the suspects are brought to justice and when they find the remaining perpetrator.

Cheera L (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. Murders and killing type articles go by WP:NEVENT, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How so? This case in particular has received significant coverage in a wide variety of news outlets and the media. It's a story having been reported and impacted all over the world, not just in the U.S. Cheera L (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The non-routine coverage was for about a week. With events, WP:SUSTAINED coverage is a consideration, which this fails. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - User Melmanns rationale is the most convincing. The sourcing is within WP:SIGCOV at this time and several aspects of this this case already mentioned above makes this killing notable. I do believe WP:GNG applies as well. BabbaQ (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I definitely have 'some concerns regarding WP:NCRIME, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:NTEMP". There is nothing in WP policies that makes an exception for the "viciousness" of a crime. Yes, newspapers and news TV did pick it up, undoubtedly because of how they profit off of sensationalism, but we shouldn't fall into the same swamp. I am strongly against this as WP:NCRIME. Lamona (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, the method of death is irrelevant. If there is no continued coverage it isn't currently notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets our notability guideline. Lightburst (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOTNEWS and SUSTAINED. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Lucas[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NMG. WP:BEFORE search turned up many people with the same name, but not this person. The MySpace link in the Infobox only leads to a collection of music tracks, with the rest of the page lacking content. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 04:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced BLP which should have been deleted long since. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO, unsourced BLP. Spinixster (trout me!) 14:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete for all the reasons stated by other editors above. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium (film series)[edit]

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if you don't have WP:NAVPOPS installed, it's not usually convenient to look up those settings. Innocent mistakes never bother me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although the series is a loose one, the miniseries that are part of the set are all RAI productions and seem to be part of the same project indeed. I favour a keep, as the page helps navigation as a disambiguation page does. I would rename it but not sure how, because most of the "films" were broadcast as miniseries... Imperium (miniseries series) would be a terrible name! Imperium (TV productions)? Sources would not hurt either. Would redirect and merge to/into Imperium (disambiguation) be a suitable WP:ATD?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Italy, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, France, Germany, and Spain. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of related topics that all have articles, therefore useful for navigation. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful navigation list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institut Constant de Rebecque[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. It hasn't had sources since at least 2017 if ever. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Politics, and Switzerland. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep votes have failed to identiy sources that can provide SIGCOV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel & Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Not satisfied with the reliability of sources. I could not find anything else online either. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Lebanon, United States of America, and New York. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he company has significant notability within the jewelry industry, evidenced by extensive coverage in reputable sources such as industry publications and mainstream media. Additionally, the article provides verifiable information about the company's history, product offerings, and impact on the market that meets gng --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources you could find that establish notability? GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A week later and no response ... comment such as "within the jewellry industry" seems to me to indicate that it is a niche company and "extensive coverage in reputable sources" and "the article contains verifiable information" indicated a lack of knowledge of the GNG/WP:NCORP notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: if you are arguing to Keep this article, please share source that can be used to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I have to agree wth Pandora. The sources seems to satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaskedSinger which sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP? Really appreciate if you can indicate source/page/paragraph or some other content that meets CORPDEPTH and ORGIND in particular. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a spot check of a few references, and they read like PR/puff pieces. Lean delete, per WP:CORPDEPTH.-KH-1 (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the many JCK articles mentioning the company were SIGCOV and independent (they are not), this would still only count as one niche industry source, not the multiple pieces of SIRS coverage in broader media. The lack of anything outside press releases and announcements from affiliated groups suggests NORG cannot be met. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 20:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a problem that could be solved through editing, rather than deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't seem like a promotional, with many relatives, it was reflected in the scholar's family, the person holding the posts of the largest legally functioning Islamic youth organization in India. and He is a member of the family circle of Prophet Muhammad in India(Sayyid ) Spworld2 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help to get a review or analysis of existing sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - prominent IUML leader, which is clear from a quick google search. Take for example "Accompanied by prominent leaders such as KPCC president K Sudhakaran, Ramesh Chennithala, P K Kunhalikutty, and Panakkad Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal, Rahul Gandhi will formally submit his nomination papers to Wayanad District Collector Renu Raj at her office in Kalpetta." (India Today). Here is a news story on Wahhabi leaders condemning Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal. Here seen speaking at a conference (have a look at crowd size at 01:01). Clearly a notable public figure by any means. --Soman (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being a party leader does not guarantee notability according to WP:NPOL. There's not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Everything is mostly trivial mentions. C F A 💬 21:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Mathrubhumi, Manorama, Madhyamam, and so forth. There's tons of google hits in news stories where he appears. --Soman (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG, there are many news articles (WP:RS) available on google! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics education in New York[edit]

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

Almost entirely unsourced and out-of-date. Insufficiently distinct from Mathematics education in the United States. Possibly could be redirected to New York Regents Examinations. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is true that the present article is very poorly sourced (I am not sure about the datedness but willing to take the nominator's word for it). However, the content looks to me like it's all true and sourceable in principle. Indeed, it's clear that this is a notable topic: there were major changes to the structure of New York State's mathematics courses and exams in the last 25 years, and they received widespread coverage at the time. For example, here's one article about the 2007 change to Algebra-Geometry-Algebra 2 [65], here's an article about aligning math requirements to Common Core, and here's an article about one particular administration of an exam that spends several paragraphs discussing various changes to state policies over time, as in the article we're discussing. These various changes described in our article were mostly specific to New York State, making Mathematics education in the United States an unacceptable merge/redirect target, and I see no advantage to merging them into an article about Regents exams in general (better would be links out from that article to separate articles on the various subject areas it covers, when there is sufficient sourcing to permit that). --JBL (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps merging this with some material from New York Regents Examinations and renaming would be an improvement? Walsh90210 (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand this proposal/question; what content do you want to merge where, and rename what to what? --JBL (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The text needs citation and probably cleaning, but it's not beyond repair, and the topic is an encyclopedic one. Redirecting to the Regent Examinations would be a bad move, because math education is more general than just the Regent Exams in algebra and geometry (for example), and likewise, they have Regent Exams on topics other than mathematics. XOR'easter (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely a notable and encyclopedic topic, even if the article is extremely out of date and in poor shape. I'd rather see somebody improve it than have it deleted as cleanup. Malinaccier (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florencio Badelic Jr.[edit]

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

I'll admit that I'm a bit unsure about this article. There are a lot of citations in the article, but all of them are routine and/or match reports. There seems to be little or no WP:SIGCOV here. Anwegmann (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Decent coverage in local media, even though it is from a not very popular football center, the article seems sufficiently based. Svartner (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. There seems to be a lot of match reports in the mix, though, and little of substance. That said, I'm still unsure about the article as a whole. Thanks for the vote. Anwegmann (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BIO per Svartner's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Iraq, and California. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. I found nothing in NewspaperArchive.com via WP:TWL, and the local newspaper for El Cajon, California doesn't have anything obvious online (though I doubt that they have older papers online). Searching is difficult because the literal translation of the much larger organization, B'nai B'rith, is the same as the name of this monastery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eljan Mehmetaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject made five appearances in Kategoria e Parë, the Albanian second tier, then disappeared from professional football. [66] mentions a hospitalisation as a 17-year-old. It's not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Robby.is.on (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. On a related note, Albania's second tier was not professional despite claims of the opposite, having crowd attendances in the hundreds. Mehmetaj actually played 3 times in the first tier, but with attendances floating around 300 people. No professional sports operation can be upheld with such a major lack of income from tickets, and when few people care about something, the media coverage is equally diminutive. Geschichte (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for MetroWest[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Coverage is mainly local and not wider as per WP:AUD. Only one article links to this. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Massachusetts. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is "mainly" local, then it is "at least one non-local", which is all that AUD requires. This appears to be a community foundation, and my inclination is to merge it into MetroWest (=the geographical area it serves). We probably could find sources to demonstrate separate notability, especially since one of the already-cited sources is about "National Recognition For Rigorous Philanthropic Standards", but I think that merging it up will help people understand its purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This Boston Globe article was the best thing I could find. It's less about the organization and more based on the subject of the organization's report. I think if there was more of this type of coverage, you could make an argument for the article, but all the other news coverage is routine press releases about board members and local newspapers. I am not in favor of merging as it is not clear how much information there is to enhance the target article. Would it just be one sentence about the existence of one particular charitable organization? Malinaccier (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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