< March 11	March 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. The Keep arguments are weak here but they are the consensus and I see no support for Deletion other than the proposal by the nominator. Editors are encouraged to help improve this article so it meets Wikipedia's standards for articles on political parties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for Democracy and Development (Cameroon)[edit]

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

Unrepresented minor political party lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" required by WP:ORGCRIT. Has has no secondary sources since creation nearly two decades ago. AusLondonder (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Cameroon. AusLondonder (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The party was represented in the national government in 1991 (this is referenced in the Garga Haman Adji article). (Here it says ADD later changed name to ANDP, albeit I don't see this backed up elsewhere for now.) --Soman (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the party has been represented in the national parliament, it is generally notable. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 13:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not right. Garga Haman Adji was a member of the party for one year while a minister during a transition from dictatorship. He was never elected to parliament. AusLondonder (talk) 14:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a political party represented in national government. That should be an easy pass. --Soman (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As long as the party was once represented in the national government, it's an easy pass. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where it says that in WP:NORG? Thanks AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Skål, 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having representative in the national parliament means that the party has a national outlook and eligible for an entry into Wikipedia. Lokotim (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lokotim: No they weren't represented in parliament at any time. Please see above. AusLondonder (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable political party once were in Cameroon national govt. DIV IN E 04:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Libanais Francophone Privé[edit]

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

Only primary sources provided. A search for sources did not yield coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Arab Emirates, and France. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. DIV IN E 10:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lee Navigation. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Locks and weirs on the River Lea[edit]

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

Inferior duplicate of a more complete template already transcludef at River Lea. No need for a standalone list. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Geography, and England. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep both" While the useful template appears in all or most of articles on list, whereas a link to the article, also not as a "see also, is not. Comprehensive gathering of information good for understanding the locks and weirs system plus in quick overview & other additional information, but Wikipedia is built on articles, NOT templates, (which are supplementary) and that is what appears in a search, as it should. Djflem (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to ((Lee Navigation Route Map)) in Lee Navigation, which is a far better presentation of the same information. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect Perhaps the list should be incorporated into one of those articles, but I don't see a need for this as a third page. Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An idea may be to keep this and merge and redirect the listed wikilinked articles into this one. It could be that many of the linked locks/weirs do not fulfil current notability criteria for separate pages. Rupples (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Templates are *sometimes* invisible to mobile users, a substantial percentage of our users. jengod (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Lee Navigation Route Map in Lee Navigation does not show all the weirs listed in this article and is a little complicated to follow, so a redirect there isn't entirely suitable. Rupples (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect this is a very important list --Devoke water 11:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge or Redirect': Per above. DIV IN E 04:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shu Shine F.C.[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A defunct local football club. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. National, not local. The club was promoted to the Super League in 1992 and after that was among the founders of the Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League in 1993. We need topics like this from Zimbabwe. Sourcing will be limited to retrospects such as the ones already in the article, but they are bit thin, especially the Sunday Mail. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Top flight Zimbabwean team from pre internet era that has some online sources in the article and definotly has olffinr ones. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Pinging per your request. SportingFlyer T·C 09:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I understand the limitations that exist in finding good sources about African football, but the article itself doesn't add anything. A list of Zimbabwean football clubs, based on the source "Zimbabwe's football cemetery" for example, would be more appropriate. Svartner (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A top-flight team (and thus not "local") with coverage from the pre-internet age. I'm not sure what the article does beyond confirming its one-time existence, but I think it should stay, although barely. Anwegmann (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Zimbabwe, in which this club is mentioned. Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep per the sources presented by SportingFlyer, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 00:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of football clubs in Zimbabwe.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor article, notable football club. This is routine coverage from their 1993 season, showing there's also more out there - also tells us which stadium they played in. This article on an old player notes he was their coach. This article is an interview with a player who talked about how he got them promoted to the first division. I can't read this article due to a paywall but there's at least a mention there. Via Google books, in 1991, Horizon wrote an article about how Shu-Shine were promoted, about their first game, and about their sponsorship, but I can't get the link to work. There's enough here for a stub article, and it's at least implied that this team got pre-internet coverage in the early 1990s. SportingFlyer T·C 21:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this was closed as a redirect by a non-administrator who reverted their close when I asked for this to be draftifyed, it appears as if it is still a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not implying an answer to this question about those sources, but as a side note the criteria isn't that there are facts that can be pieced together from numerous places to create the start of an article. It's that there is in depth coverage of the subject in a couple of articles. (maybe one would be enough) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. The interview with Tavaka Gumbo clearly talks about the club's glory years. I can only access a small part of the Horizon article, but it also clearly talks about the club from the time they were in the top flight, including a page header discussing their promotion. I think WP:GNG is likely satisfied on those alone. The routine coverage also demonstrates this was a league - the most important in the country! - which would have been covered in newspapers during the time Shu-Shine were in the top flight. Top flight teams are generally but not necessarily always notable. This one seems like it has been significantly covered even though it would have been all pre-internet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Liz got to it and it's back to normal now. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Yes, the closure was reverted and the changes to the article as well. This was not a good discussion for an NAC closure as opinion is divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage, no wp:rs. QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with any of the recently posted links? SportingFlyer T·C 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a flag, I've completely rewritten the article. I obviously think it meets WP:GNG... SportingFlyer T·C 09:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is basically guaranteed that in any country with substantial media like Zimbabwe (dozens of different newspapers), top-tier teams in the country's most prominent sport and league will receive significant coverage. We do not have access to sources of the time; but SportingFlyer has still managed to perform a decent expansion of the article with modern-day sources, which only further indicates more sources that exist from the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Beanie.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer detailed analysis. Lokotim (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

It is notable that F.C. has left discernible footprints on Google, as evidenced by available information. Their players were acknowledged as Soccer Stars of the Year. It should be noted that not every country enjoyed international coverage during their era, unlike the extensive coverage available today. DIV IN E 05:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Julio Cabanillas Serrano[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Only one published work as per this source. Nirva20 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any book reviews in Spanish, no luck at AUTHOR. Spanish wiki only has one source, I don't think we have enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lokotim (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Walter Kühne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. The only possible claim of notability is via the Atlantis theory. But it barely seems influential enough to satisfy NPROF#1, as he is not a professional historian and the Antiquity article has only 19 citations according to the Google Scholar. It is also somewhat dubious whether his theory really motivated the excavations, since it is not discussed in the peer-reviewed articles, Refs. 7-9. In Wikipedia, his theory is covered by Atlantis location hypotheses#Andalusia, which seems like WP:DUE coverage. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Archaeology, and Germany. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Reshammiya[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I can find only passing mentions of him in reliable English and Hindi sources, nearly always in connection with his notable son Himesh Reshammiya. I did find this quote from him in a RS book, but that's effectively a WP:Primary source. He's worked with some notable people on some notable films, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. We could redirect to Himesh Reshammiya as an ATD, but I'm bringing it to AFD for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and India. Wikishovel (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two reliable sources with no significant coverage and one unreliable portal site. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The page can be deleted and the title can be redirected to Himesh Reshammiya page. In Himesh Reshammiya page, some mention of his father's career from reliable sources can be added. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vipin Reshammiya is dadasaheb falke award winner, he is notable person, please chack this [1] Starcruexz (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is some more links [2] Starcruexz (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
vipin rehsammiya collabrated with himesh reshammiya [3][4] Starcruexz (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Dadasaheb Phalke Award#Similarly named awards: Vipin Reshammiya didn't receive a Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 2009 as the reference above suggests, but a similarly named award from a group called the Dadasaheb Phalke Academy: [5]. You also noted above that he has collaborated on projects with his son Himesh, but as I mentioned in the nomination, on Wikipedia notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Wikishovel (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vipin Reshammiya is a Producer of a movie The Xposé you can check the credits on official upload on youtube with this link [6] uploaded by official channel of zee music company. you can chaeck any other movie database Starcruexz (talk) 10:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also as per WP:NOTINHERITED. -
Keep She once worked with someone famous –Keeper (talk), 14:15, 03 March 2009 (UTC) (how did we get a comment from 15 years ago here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)) [reply]

he has worked with his son Himesh. (i have shred links before) Starcruexz (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand, WP:NOTINHERITED is saying the opposite of this. It means that someone isn't notable just because they have worked with someone notable. Vipin Reshammiya does not inherit Himesh's notability. Wikishovel (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist, as there is an unbolded Keep vote in these comments, I don't think Soft Deletion is appropriate. It would be helpful to get a response from the article creator User:ArjunKR92 and a review of the sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom; the subject's is not currently meets to WP:MUSICBIO.~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited, not enough here to show Vipin meets WP:NCREATIVE. Ravensfire (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Sometimes reslitings can prompt a consensus as editors discuss the fate of an article. Just a note, do not strike out any "votes"/arguments unless the editor is a confirmed sockpuppet of a block-evading editor. Being an inexperienced editor, especially inexperienced with commenting at AFDs, doesn't warrant having ones opinion struck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swaady Martin[edit]

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

Fails WP: GNG and WP: SIGCOV. There were questionable sources cited and they neither say why the article is notable. Otuọcha (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Otuọcha (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have also tried to review the article in question but the article major contributor kept reverting some of my good faith edits. And in order to avoid edit warring Otuọcha (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vandalism from Otuọcha (talk · contribs). Administrators have been informed. --BobVillars (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can see no vandalism. Tagging by the nom seems appropriate but there has been edit warring to remove valid tags which has led to this AfD. Whether this AfD is valid remains to be seen but the sourcing of this article is very weak and should probably be at Draft instead of mainspace. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look carefully. Vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaady_Martin&diff=1210583169&oldid=1210582909 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaady_Martin&diff=1210583658&oldid=1210583406 ; More on the talk page of the user). Sources : https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-africa-29887510 and https://www.bellanaija.com/2013/07/ivorien-ceo-swaady-martin-leke-is-creating-a-luxury-african-brand-watch-her-feature-on-cnns-market-place-africa/ (more very easy to find). It is an account created to make vandalism on Wikipedia and have fun. BobVillars (talk) 10:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Appearing on multiple sources even reliable ones doesn't mean Notability. They can be just mere press releases, blogs or created by the subject. The organisation she founded even fails WP: ORG. Thus, I can basically say there is no notability.

@BobVillars, you can also check this out, WP: MOS and WP: NOTABILITY. Otuọcha (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP: BEFORE, I also believe there can be sources out there. Simply rewrite the page, since the neutrality is disputed. Remember also that Press release and blog posts are not reliable Just advice!!! Otuọcha (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha, you can also check this out WP:DND and WP: Vandalism. --BobVillars (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per you user talk page, I also believe you have to read it and stop vandalism and having fun on Wikipedia. Just advice !!! --BobVillars (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BobVillars, while you may disagree with Otoucha's edits to this article and their nomination here, I'm not seeing anything that adds up to vandalism, which appears to independently be the conclusion that people are arriving at at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Otuọcha. Please desist from further accusations of vandalism without adequate evidence. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ivory Coast, Liberia, South Africa, France, Switzerland, England, United States of America, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just not enough sourcing. The Financial Times article is solid. The BBC is an interview, the rest are about her speaking in a panel of two or three people... This is brief coverage [7] and this is also a brief mention [8]. I tried French sources, not much else turns up. One more good source, I think we'd be ok Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : In 2012, Forbes considered her one of the 20 most influential young African women. I am happy with the sources. --Pasparfait (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Pasparfait (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - The Forbes article is largely an interview with the subject thus neither independent nor reliable. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although I would prefer better sources, the interviews have some valuable content before the interview. I can't find the specific guideline right now, but I remember somewhere seeing that although the interview itself is primary, the information the source often provides before the interview can be considered a secondary source. As such, if we accept the Financial Times source, then the couple of paragraphs introducing her in the Forbes article, we're good. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Significa liberdade yes, that's the case. Can you point out the three best ones? -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This one is more on the line. Financial Times and Forbes are the best articles. I struggle to pinpoint a third. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided so let's try one more relist so this doesn't need to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree FT is a solid source but the others are interviews or not in-depth. I searched for other sources but came up with the same. The Forbes article is also largely an interview and was written by a contributor rather than staff so is not a reliable source per WP:FORBESCON. S0091 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – FT is gold standard. Concurring with Significa_liberdade, an article containing an interview can be secondary in some sections. There is another staff article on Forbes Africa not included currently, which is sufficient. TLA^tlak 13:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes Africa is not Forbes. Forbes just licenses their name. See this CJR article. S0091 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, hence why I said Forbes Africa. Is it not fair to presume they are generally reliable for now? TLA^tlak 03:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no named author just "Forbes Africa" which is always suspect and the only policies/standards they have are Advertising Terms & Conditions and Privacy. Compare that to FT which has a named author and a robust Editorial Code. That's not say Forbes Africa is not usable but it needs to be used with caution so a weak source.

As for the content you have highlighted below, the portions that talk about what she wants and what her plans are emanating from her as she is the only person that can know her wants/plans so that's primary and mostly about the business rather than her. YSWARA closed last year which is largely the claim for notability given almost all the sources are in the context of her founding YSWARA. I did check for sources in the past year but only found this which is mostly about Africa's agri-business in general with little independent content about her. Maybe she can meet notability in the future but she doesn't currently. S0091 (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially every news source has articles that are bylined directly as their publication name, so I don't know if it's fair to say Forbes Africa is not reliable without any discussion, such as Forbes India.

The first, part of the third, and the fourth paragraph seem secondary enough to me. Even if most of her notability stems from YSWARA that isn't a 1E thing or WP:INHERIT. I'd say it's still a weakish keep from me. TLA^tlak 01:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 said Forbes Africa is not Forbes which I concur. But @I'm tla, it's obvious the article on Forbes Africa is in no way talking about the subject except mentioning her for YSWARA, her brand which seems not notable. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even at some point, interviews per WP: INTERVIEW can serve as secondary source and per WP: COMMONSENSE, if and only if it's significant and thus, an indepth analysis for the subject. Some of the sources (per interview; if not all) in no way treats the subject solely and talked any information about the subject. How then, do it adds to notability. Example: a part of the article stated; In 2012, Forbes considered her one of the 20 most influential young African women. And looking at this source from Forbes, there were none like that. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you're saying about WP:INTERVIEW. We should also completely disregard the Forbes.com article as it's written by a contributor, per WP:FORBESCON, I also can't find where Forbes writes that she is one of the 20 most influential young African women.

But the Forbes Africa article contains good information about her work. She is not inheriting notability from the company (there is essentially more about what she is doing with Yswara than what Yswara itself is doing).

Extended content
Yswara, a luxury tea company based in Johannesburg, South Africa, was launched in 2012. Its founder and CEO, Swaady Martin-Leke, a national of Côte d’Ivoire, hand-selects the tea from the various African countries, to incorporate into her company’s collection of 23 varieties of tea. This curator of precious African teas wants to make her offering a prestigious product through educating customers on the quality and benefits of African teas, by creating an experience that includes African tea rituals, African-made tea paraphernalia and elegant packaging. Martin-Leke sources Yswara’s tea from South Africa, Malawi, Rwanda and Kenya with plans to source from Burundi, Cameroon, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. All her staff are women and the suppliers must be 75% female-owned or managed. Martin-Leke is already shipping her luxury tea around the world via her online store and online partners like africacandy.com.

Extended content

Yswara, a luxury tea company based in Johannesburg, South Africa, was launched in 2012. Its founder and CEO, Swaady Martin-Leke, a national of Côte d’Ivoire, hand-selects the tea from the various African countries, to incorporate into her company’s collection of 23 varieties of tea.

This curator of precious African teas wants to make her offering a prestigious product through educating customers on the quality and benefits of African teas, by creating an experience that includes African tea rituals, African-made tea paraphernalia and elegant packaging.

Martin-Leke sources Yswara’s tea from South Africa, Malawi, Rwanda and Kenya with plans to source from Burundi, Cameroon, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda and Zimbabwe. All her staff are women and the suppliers must be 75% female-owned or managed.

Martin-Leke is already shipping her luxury tea around the world via her online store and online partners like africacandy.com.

TLA^tlak 03:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vote!s by sock puppets have been struck through. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Per Oaktree b, we are not at GNG yet, but close. Strictly speaking then, it is not a keep on the sources we have thus far, and I am hesitant to suggest any kind of IAR keep. But look at the title of the Le Monde article that (briefly) mentions her as a woman in business in Africa: "On doit toujours prouver qu’on est capables" - "We must always prove that we're capable" and somehow I think this rings true in Wikipedia biographies too, which skew white male. If she were an American businessman, I bet the sourcing would be there. I think we probably should have this article, and the encyclopaedia would be a little better for having it. I am not happy with deleting this, whilst recognising that we could do with another secondary source. The article is a good start, but there is a lot more that could be done to it. Some of the statements appear somewhat promotional (e.g. the way the Forbes interview is presented). !voting draftify, where it could be incubated further, but if that doesn't have consensus, I'd be weakly for keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think a keep is fine, I think this draftify idea is a good closer and appropriately addresses the delete votes. This probably shouldn't be relisted again, and there's consensus that one source, FT, is strong, but as we need "multiple" sources, interviews can be iffy. TLA^tlak 09:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with Draftify. Pinging @Otuọcha, @Oaktree b and @Significa liberdade to see if we can get stronger consensus. S0091 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to draftify (or delete at this point, too). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedant Institute of Management & Technology[edit]

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

As it stands - this article makes no sense. The College is described as closing in 2019 - but as offering courses. It is not listed as a College in the local district website (Hapur). Can't find contemporary online references. Newhaven lad (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ORGCRIT nor WP:GNG, per WP:NSCHOOL. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any sources on Google, and the provided source contains only a list of colleges, which doesn't offer significant coverage. So, it doesn't meet WP:NORG or WP:GNG. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Dastjani Farahani[edit]

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

Case of WP:BLP1E: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article". Per BLP1E we should avoid having articles on individuals that reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. Also relevant is WP:SUSPECT: "For individuals who are not public figures...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources are dated the same day. March 4, 2023, and finding the same in a search...all on about the same date so fails WP:NOTNEWS and per nom WP:SUSPECT is also concern. S0091 (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outages. This is how I've decided to close this discussion as an ATD. What I would recommend is to follow the suggestion mentioned several times here to create a Meta services outages article and then content from this article-turned-redirect can be Merged there. I think that is a better use of editor time than to contest this AFD closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Facebook outage[edit]

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

recentism. fails a ten year test and probably a one year test as well. ltb d l (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Redirect. Short (albeit worldwide) outage, not notable. [Update: Redirect per User:Ritchie333 below.] Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously too soon, not obviously different from a usual outage. If any relation to Super Tuesday is noted by RS, I can imagine the outing being covered in the 2024 United States presidential election article, but not in its own stand-alone article. — ♠Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 17:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But also consider discounting my !vote because I was made aware of this offwiki. GMG ^talk 17:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 Facebook outage and rename as Meta services outages, with a redirect from Facebook services outages, to parallel Google services outages. Fences&Windows 18:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this merge. 2021 Facebook outage has detailed coverage of a particular outage and it would not improve that article to merge with others. We could make a Meta services outages (and I'd be fine merging this there) but I'd still keep 2021 Facebook outage as a separate page. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:20, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Elli, the 2021 Facebook outage is fine as a page, but creating a Meta services outages page could be useful. Another possibility is broadening the scope of that new article and splitting out the "technical issues" section of the overburdened Criticism of Facebook page. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outage. This is one of those cases where I'd say "I wish we didn't have the article right now", but since we do, then it was worth seeing if it could be destubbed. It probably can't, so it can go in the parent article, which was my initial intention of putting in a sentence or two. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 that article is already too long (with a boilerplate notice on top about excessive page size). I think @Fences and windows's proposal is better. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think it is too early to create this article as there is not enough information or events + Is every outage we're going to create a single article about? that convert Wikipedia into a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS) and I think we should merge all previous articles to one article. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a significant event. Fails WP:NSUSTAINED. --WikiLinuz (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clealy does not meet notability guidelines. There is a very small chance it is WP:TOOSOON but much more likely it has no notability at all. WP:NOTNEWS applies and under either policy and GNG, this one is a clear delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, per Ritchie333. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / Keep WP:RECENTISM is an essay about something that happens at wikipedia, not a deletion criteria or policy. Part of the essay even makes an argument about recentism being good. Ten year test is similarly just one way to measure that. There is clearly enough coverage to meet WP:Notability, which is an inclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria of WP:Notnews don't apply; this is not "original reporting" (it relies on other news reports as primary sources), and it's clearly neither "who's who" or "celebrity gossip and diary." The closest notnews exclusion would be "news reports." However, the news reports exclusion is specifically for being WP:ROUTINE information, while those being used are not. I would support merging to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outage as providing the appropriate level of coverage. However, I'm concerned that page has been tagged as "too long to read and navigate comfortably" since 2021. It should be cleaned up and possibly split into sub-articles before information is added. Darker Dreams (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:NOTNEWS is policy. I do not understand how you think the policy does not apply, saying it is because the article relies on other news reports as primary sources. That is exactly why it does apply. And as you say, the article is built on primary sources, which is why it does not meet GNG either. Sources should be secondary for notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mistyped; I meant "it relies on other news reports not primary sources." Now, looking at WP:PRIMARY I see that "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources." (Which is a wikipedia-ism that I didn't realize before.) Though, in fairness to the stub-like nature of the article, it's done a pretty good job of limiting to verifiable facts without spinning into the problems of breaking news. Meanwhile, also policy is WP:BREAKING explicitly gives guidelines for handling breaking news which includes WP:DELAY (which we're too late for; already created) and WP:RAPID which is exactly this discussion. All of that said, I still think that merging would be appropriate - if the target for merge didn't need so much cleanup. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- zero assertions of notability. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article not meet notability guidelines. Ayane ^{connect me!} 01:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was down for two hours, nothing out of the ordinary for a website. Doesn't compare to the Rogers outage in Canada or the At&T outage that lasted much longer. I don't see this as being notable; at best could be a mention in a "facebook in 2024" article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge - If the situation is same as the 2021 Facebook outage article, then we can consider merging it with another article as per Ritchie333's suggestion. As this is just a login error and not the server having an error, then we can consider deleting this article. Weareblahs (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 2 hour outage is nothing, at a minimum these outage article should be at least 12 and preferably 24 hours. As per not news, if there is anything unusual about the outage a line or two in the [{Facebook]] article is enough. Gnan garra 06:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, while the length of the outage was only 2 hours, its impact was much more widespread than just "a web site" AShugg (talk) 10:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fb may be considered more than a just a website, yesthe impact is wide spread given its global reach. The issue is every incident article worthy, is this one of such significance(not based of the number of news reports). Any outage of these types of companies should be based on the reason not the numbers reporting it, and then asked if it can be covered in better ways. This incident is minor and can be covered with just a passing note in the main article for now. Gnan garra 11:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2021 Facebook outage to create Meta services outages per suggestion by @Fences and windows. It is not the length of the outage that was significant, but its impact - not only Meta smartphone/web applications (FB, Messenger, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp, more?) were affected, but any third-party app or service using OpenID to provide a "Log in with Facebook" function so that users don't need to create a new account and password. People were locked out of systems without even realising that they were indirectly depending on Facebook to be functioning correctly. As such it is a noteworthy lesson for Internet users. AShugg (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Criticism of Facebook: Or create Meta services outages and transfer there. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait a month or so, honestly.~~ Merge with Criticism of Facebook; 0 signs of sustained coverage after two weeks. The article states that "impacts from the outage" are still being investigated, so we can't know for sure whether or not this event meets or will meet the "lasting effects" criteria or the ten year test. Additionally, since it's recent, we don't have any evidence that future coverage will be sustained or not. I wouldn't significantly oppose merging, though. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 08:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC) (edited 00:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
This is an argument that it is WP:TOOSOON. Per that essay, you might argue for keeping this in draft, even though clearly not ready for mainspace now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The essay seems to focus more on topics that haven't yet been significantly covered in reliable sources and fail verifiability, which is not the case here. It doesn't mention much about sustained coverage or impacts from events. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 09:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources cover Tuesday's outage? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's reference section highlights sources like The Independent, BBC News and The Washington Post that synthesize information from primary sources, such as Twitter/X and Downdetector reports and statements from Meta and US cybersecurity officials, into somewhat comprehensive articles, meeting the "synthesis" part of WP:SECONDARY. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 11:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, these are all reporting the event (unsurprising as they are news reports about the event). They are primary. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. This is true of all the sources in the article save one. I was prepared to accept this is secondary: [9], although there might be other things to say about it. But that is moot as that article is talking about the 2021 outage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't really know what lasting secondary coverage there will be after an event until... you know, a bit after the event. Rushing to AfD isn't particularly constructive. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flip that around: rushing to create the article isn't particularly constructive. If you think this may be notable one day (I don't, incidentally) then it can be draftified and worked on pending the arrival of secondary sources. That is the thrust of WP:TOOSOON also. I wouldn't oppose draftify as a WP:ATD although I suspect you might be wasting your time. I could be wrong on that though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that rushing to create articles on current events that might not be notable isn't particularly constructive. However, once the page exists, rushing to delete isn't helpful either. Two months from now this discussion would be much clearer and the harm of having this page exist for two months while probably not being notable is negligible. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait per WP:RAPID.--Ideophagous (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Okay, it's a week later and we need to see more of a consensus. Right now we have editors arguing for Delete, Redirect/Merge (but with different target articles suggested) and Wait which I'm assuming is actually a Keep argument. This article was created fast and AFD'd fast, has the passage of time clarified the situation any?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outages per Ritchie. A sentence there is sufficient. I think that is a better target than 2021 Facebook outage, which was a separate event. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having not seen anything reported about the event since it happened, I stand by my intial delete comment. I can see common sense decision in making it a rediect to Criticism of Facebook#Downtime and outages. Gnan garra 07:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle of power notation[edit]

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

Sourcing currently in the article is one forum (MSE) thread, two blog-posts, one youtube video from a math popularizer, and one page that is hosted on a university website but is of unclear authorship, which describes this notation as "so young that one could conceive of it as still gestating in the womb and "new and as-yet-unaccepted by the general mathematics community". Google Scholar finds no hits for the topic (searching for both the title of the article and "'triangle notation' logarithm"). The PROD rationale "Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage found." certainly describes this sourcing; it was reverted by Kvng, while adding one of the two blog posts, which doesn't suggest the presence of sources of appropriate quality. Maybe some day someone will write some RS about this subject. JBL (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I originally PRODed the article, and I stand by the assessment that there simply isn't coverage.— Moriwen (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a cute idea, but not notable. –jacobolus (t) 23:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, mostly per WP:NOTINVENTED and WP:NEO. I tried to tag this as an A11 speedy deletion, before the prod, but this was contested on weak grounds. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability; indeed, the quality of the sources and prose of the article suggest a lack of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 10:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I think that some editors new to the English Wikipedia need to read up on SIGCOV and notability standards on this project. Also, next time, focus on sources, not each other. Bickering with others never persuades other editors that you are presenting a strong argument. It's a distraction from what you are trying to achieve. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elkhan Bashirov[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Secondary sources lack significant coverage and fail to provide substantial information about the individual beyond routine mentions or mere references to their name. (fails WP:SIGCOV) It is evident that the examples of source citations in the article also fails the requirements. Moreover, the facts presented in the article, including the individual's activities, positions held, and awards received, do not pass the criterias of WP:NBLP guidelines and also, even with a little research, it becomes clear that these facts are not significant. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the following significant coverage in reliable sources:

Sufficient sourcing to meet GNG. Though searches such as "Elxan Bəşirov" or "Elkhan Bashirov pdf" don't yield many results? --Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 14:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significiant coverage? These are just name mentions, and in some links, there is not even any content or information at all. @Thenightaway, I'm interested in your opinion on notability of the subject. By the way, I should note that this user, who participates in this discussion (90AA123), has been blocked as one of the puppet accounts of a user who has been blocked due to undisclosed paid editing. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd mention that 90AA123 is not blocked on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources mentioned are related to the involvement of companies and government officials, not to be used in the article.

The person's name is included only as a participant and is not of significance that would make this article encyclopedic. Redivy (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to this discussion, which means voting. You are an invited participant from Azerbaijan at the invitation of user Sura Shukurlu. Your argument is not valid. Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 00:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a very serious accusation, you know that.However, you don't decide this, the admins decide this. All your accounts in Azerbaijan have been blocked due to many rule violations, and anyone who wants can review the text I mentioned. In all of the articles, the person only participates and has no connection with the article. If what I say is wrong, I'm ready to be banned. Redivy (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have verified evidence, but I can provide you with evidence. You make an argument but don't support it. Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that by sending so many messages you are drawing all the attention to yourself and this will lead to you being blocked.Redivy (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources cited above, it's posssible that this one is sigcov; I can't tell, because of paywall. The others are absolutely not even approaching sigcov, so there would be no WP:GNG pass here even so. -- asilvering (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Is the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists an irrelevant source? 5.44.34.90 (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Please see WP:SIGCOV. -- asilvering (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, but you mentioned above that only one source, i.e. turan.az, is valid. Did you forget to cite the source here? SIGCOV + The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Okey? 5.44.34.90 (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is also not significant coverage, and I am at a loss as to why you think it is. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, he is a businessman who has been awarded twice by the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. He is a well-known Honored Engineer of the Republic - https://president.az/az/articles/view/33409/print. 5.44.34.90 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, too, is not significant coverage. Please refrain from pinging me about this any further. -- asilvering (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://anaxeber.info/21467-beshrov-qardashlarnn-mlyonluq-seltenet.html - significant coverage.

5.44.34.90 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://afn.az/xeber/77964-yaxin-qohumu-elxan-beshirov-haqda.html - significant coverage. 5.44.34.90 (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://xalqxeber.az/society/32938-metanet-a-shirketinin-prezidenti-elxan-beshirov-haqqinda-ilginc-dda.html - significant coverage. 5.44.34.90 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No more than 20-25 people in Azerbaijan know these sites :D significant coverage??)) 5.44.39.101 (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just search on google - Elxan Beşirov 5.44.34.90 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: President of a machine plant isn't notable, the rest are as explained below. Name drops and brief mentions. Nothing for notability, appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO, sources in article and above are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. As has been mentioned, mentions are not SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 11:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarGames[edit]

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

I don't see WP:NBUSINESS satisfied. Paradoctor (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Finland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that this article is somehow about three entities with this name, none of which appear to be related to each other. While I don't have any real opinion at this time, this is probably one of those titles where it may be little surprise that this is a magnet for such swerving between multiple questionably (if at all) notable topics, at least some of which is promotional. There may well be relatively little here that's actually worth keeping. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, that didn't register with me. I had assumed the equipment and event business was a precursor to the sports marketer, and the casino site a side business. I stand corrected. Paradoctor (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this is a WP:TNT case, basically per Wcquidditch. Maybe even worth salting to prevent more recreation and hijacking. -- asilvering (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the original article was about the sports marketing company sourced with press releases and non-RS. Later is was hijacked (2018?) and proceeded to get worse from there. WP:TNT is best option. S0091 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. after sources added. Looks like it could use some pruning though. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure Thru Inner Space[edit]

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

Former Disneyland attraction. WP:GNG is very weak. Sourcing is 90% Youtube, with one footnote to a passing mention in a news story and another mention in "The Disneyland Encyclopedia". Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest redirecting this to Tomorrowland (Disney Parks). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Toys, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is actually a lot of information on this ride out there - the problem is that most of the ones that go the most in-depth are either primary (being published by/posted on actual official Disney owned platforms) or would not be considered a reliable source (Disney/Disney Park fan sites). I did find this article from the Los Angeles Times about a virtual reality re-creation of the ride to preserve it that was showcased a decade ago, which also discusses the original ride as well a bit more in-depth than the current LA Times article being used as a source in the article. There are also a number of books out there that have a paragraph or two describing/discussing it. While most of them fall along the lines of the many "unofficial Disney park guides" style book, there was also this one that seems a bit more promising. Though, I'm also not sure if any of them actually have enough on the ride to be considered significant coverage. I'm currently leaning towards a merge to Tomorrowland (Disney Parks) (or any other more appropriate target if someone has a better recommendation), but as this one is a bit on the edge for me on whether or not it pass the WP:GNG, I'll hold off on a formal recommendation for now, to see if anyone else has any luck finding anything more substantial than what I found in my own searches. Rorshacma (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are five pages on "Adventure Thru Inner Space" in the book The Disneyland Story: The Unofficial Guide to the Evolution of Walt Disney's Dream (2014), an independent published source. There are two pages on the attraction in the book The Disneyland Encyclopedia (2017), also an unofficial and independent published source. There was also contemporary newspaper coverage when the attraction opened; I added references to two articles, including the syndicated "Monsanto Opens Attraction on the Atom at Disneyland". This is enough to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep per sources provided by Toughpigs. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer. If this is kept but not improve, please replace notability template with ((sources exist)). TIA. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus: I improved it — I added information and references from all of those sources that I mentioned. Did you look at the current state of the article? Toughpigs (talk) 01:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources included in the current version of the article are sufficient to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. after improvements have been made to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PEP (People, Events and Places) Talk[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multi-awarded show and a precursor to most Philippine feature programs. Please do some WP:BEFORE next time. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that either of the awards the show won are major. They all seem minor and not notable. Just because a show won an "award" doesn't make it notable...unless the award is a major, recgonized award. Also, being a precursor to other shows is not a gauge of notability, unless citations can be provided saying as much. Otherwise it is just conjecture. My BEFORE, which I did, brought up nothing to support notability, and I am not sure your rationale is enough either. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow PMPC STAR awards minor and not notable. Nah, we're done talking here. I'm not dealing with this. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Um yeah, Catholic Mass Media Awards and PMPC Star Awards for Television are major; in fact the latter seems to be the only award giving body for solely devoted to television. This screams like "ignorant foreigner!" to me. There's still time to withdraw this nomination and stop wasting our time. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: with reminder to avoid personal attacks against the nom, thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lanesborough School[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a preparatory school, and not found sources to add. The existing references are to the school's website. I cannot see three independent, reliable, secondary refs, and so don't think the school meets WP:GNG, WP:NCORP or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nom, does not meet GNG. S0091 (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Docus[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, all citations to otherwise reliable sources read more like press releases or advertising than actual reporting. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Technology, Armenia, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve- While I agree that the article reads a bit like an advertisement, I also believe that with a bit of an overhaul, the article can be made into a decent stub. I found articles discussing the achievements of the company on Forbes and USA Today, so I don't think WP:N is an issue here. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't check the USA Today article due to it being blocked in the EU, but the Forbes article is written by a contributor which is considered to be self-published. AlexandraAVX (talk) 07:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used a VPN to check, the USA Today article is also written by a contributor without editorial oversight. Neither of these articles are relevant for asserting notability from my reading of them. AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources are either not reliable, written by contributors or has no named author, and are clearly PR puff pieces. S0091 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – There is sourcing, but I'm feeling WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and some of them anyway just basically quote directly quote via an interview. USA Today/Forbes do not work here per WP:RS/P. TLA^tlak 00:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North Gate, Indiana[edit]

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

Just a suburban development built around 1960. Searching is pretty hopeless given commonality of the name. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Skynxnex (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's on topo maps from after 1960 sometime and someone put up a little "Northgate" sign next to Northgate Road, but this appears to be a small housing development which got into GNIS because it was never incorporated into Columbus, Indiana proper and is therefore unincorporated. I don't think it passes WP:GNG, I did search fairly thoroughly. SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First mention of of the place as a subdivision, no earlier named place found https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-republic-north-gate-subdivision/143312713/ GNIS provides no citation to explain their behavior.James.folsom (talk) 23:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBSC-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The question is not whether the proposal suggested in the article was made but whether the content of the article can be verified through reliable sources. If those reliable sources are located in the future, this article can be reconsidered but right now, it appears that the sourcing doesn't support the claims of the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order-State of Burgundy[edit]

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

Most of the relevant information on the Order-State of Burgundy is either not cited or comes from discussion board. The main citations are to discussion boards which are not considered Reliable sources and violate policies of No original research and Verifiability. Their are no reliable sources fo information I can find on it online for the topic. It appears to be related more to an online game "Hearts of Iron" Myotus (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, History, Military, Geography, Belgium, France, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was apparently a real plan. All the actual information on a state in Burgundy appears to come from a memoir by someone who was a doctor for Himmler, as stated in The Time article. Text of this memoir here. The Time article given is also just a summary of this as well. The Wallonien also says "His [Leon Degrelle's] purpose was actually historic: to make a great Burgundy with the southern part of Belgium and a part of northern France. His dream: to recreate the duchy of Charles the Bold before his death at Nancy in 1477." (this is all it seemingly says about Burgundy). The forum post appears to have used the memoir as a source but not everything in the forum appears to be in the memoir, at least the copy I could find. The unsourced paragraph in the background section (and every detail originally given about the state when the article was created) is entirely from the forum post as well. The name and maybe some details appear to have been made up from a Hearts of Iron mod, as it only appears to be called Burgundy in actual sources, and looking up the name given only gives results for HoI discussions and Polandball. ~~I'm not voting though, there could be things I'm missing.~~ I will put a vote. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding the memoir text and your commments! It still is concerning this is only from a memoir and that there are no actual official documents (or any other collaborating documents) supporting a plan for the creation of a Burgundian Free State. The book that is cited "The Wallonien" appears to by Richard Landwehr, Jean-Louis Roba, and Ray Merriam, has not undergone any academic review. It also concerns me that one of the authors, Richard Landwehr, his book 'Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach' was reviewed in the academic journal, 'The American Historical Review' was described as "too flawed to be recommended as an undergraduate text" The reviews author, historian S.P. MacKenzie also describes Landwehr as an "extreme admirer [from] the fringes of the far-right." MacKenzie connects Landwehr with the contemporary Waffen-SS historical revisionism. (Brown, Howard (1998). "Untitled". The American Historical Review. volume: 103, Issue: 5, page: 1561)

I still recommend deleting the page but I would support adding a section in Felix Kersten's page (Himmler's doctor) on the Burgundian Free State in reference to his memoir. Myotus (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are definitely large swathes of the article that need to be addressed, and some that need to be outright deleted. That being said, while some of the evidence fronted in the article is shaky at best, there is likely a wealth of knowledge about this specific plan either lost to time (due to NS Germany's purge of sensitive documents) or floating about. If such is not to be the case, I agree with your proposal to add it to Felix Kersten's page, although moving it to the page referring to NS Germany's planned "Reserved Zone" in Eastern France may suffice. Nikolai Gennadievich Nazarov (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know very little about Himmler's plans, but according to this source, Burgundy apparently was supposed to be a "supranational Aryan state":

[10] 2804:29B8:5183:100C:AC26:3A2B:52BF:D4FD (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless better sourcing is found, I don't think there's really enough to go on here. So far this is just seems like something Himmler brought up once to his doctor and that a memoir is the best source on this. If the plans were brought up in official documents or were approved by Hitler (which it would need to be to actually happen), you'd think there would be more talk or sources about it. The fact that most of the information about the state used in the article was sourced to a German alternative history forum post and that the name of the article seems to be taken from a game mod and not from real sources doesn't help. Also see Myotus's comment below mine. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Himmler did have a plan to form an SS state in Burgundy, whether Hitler supported it is another matter, but it should be covered in an article. -- 2804:29B8:5183:100C:1CCC:1435:AF55:35B9 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request is not about whether Hitler supported it. It is about the lack of any documentation other than Felix Kersten's (Himmler's doctor) personal memoir (it is important to point out the several other claims in Kersten's memoir have been disputed), posts on a blog, and a dubious book by a discredited author. Myotus (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's most likely a real plan. If it is, we should improve the article with better sourcing, not scrap it altogether. 191.135.55.141 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If better sourcing (following Wikipedia's guidelines for relevant and reliable sources) can be found the article can be recreated but the misleading article should removed. Myotus (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizen Academy[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, current sources are either WP:PRIMARY or do not provide WP:SIGCOV. A BEFORE also doesn't help but turn out profiles, etc. NAN and Guardian Nigeria pieces are obviously press releases. Also, generally fails WP:GNG. Thus, non-notable entity. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very weak news coverage also some sources unreliable. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé's three-act project[edit]

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

This is just a WP:CATEGORY-like article that will list the three albums of the trilogy. There is nothing in this article that is not already covered in the other two. ℛonherry☘ 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ℛonherry☘ 18:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything not duplicative to Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project and the respective albums per WP:MERGEREASON. We already have 2 places for this info - we don't need a third. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia:Fancruft, Wikipedia should not have tons of articles about a 3-part trilogy just because it is a trilogy. This can just be covered on Beyoncé's own page. AskeeaeWiki (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project as redundant like has been said above. Would not be opposed to recreation in the future if more sources discussing all three albums collectively come about, but so far it's mostly, if not entirely, been about the two albums separately. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per above rationales. Theknine2 (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any new info with Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project and the album pages per above. If there is none, delete. It is WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article as there is not enough about the trilogy that can’t just be covered on the Beyoncé and album pages. If delete is chosen I don’t think a redirect is needed as the name isn’t likely to be a popular search term. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this page does not add anything new when compared to Beyonce's main page or the individual RENAISSANCE and COWBOY CARTER album pages - it is simply repeating the same info. Anyone following her Discography box will be able to follow through the three albums and notice they are three acts part of a trilogy. UltimateDisco (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Until sources begin to discuss the impact of the trilogy in its' entirety (most likely after Act III is released), all new information should appear under the Beyoncé#2022–present: Trilogy Project section of her page. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sree Sevugan Annamalai College[edit]

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

Cannot find anything of note online Newhaven lad (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No hits in google news. and only 1 line mentions in google books. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titans Mobile[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant English sources, and the Chinese sources that I found seemed to be the company's financial reports. QuietCicada chirp 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and China. QuietCicada chirp 17:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero coverage whatsoever. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Battle of Haidru (1828)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

To preface, I'm going off my observations from the first 2 sources in descending order. The third and fourth refs, "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" and "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources and thus not allowed. The last source seems to be merely a Google snapshot.

Here is what Hari Ram Gupta says of the battle: "Having failed at Peshawar, Sayyid Ahmad planned to seize Attock fort from the Sikhs. Its possession by him would automatically clear Hazara and Peshawar from the Sikhs, and it would open the gateway for the invasion of the Panjab. Khadi Khan of Hund secretly alerted the Sikh commander of the fort, and the plan fell through. Sayyid Ahmad, in anger attacked the village Haidru, and put to the sword all the inhabitants, both Hindus and Muslims. On hearing this news Hari Singh Nalwa suddenly appeared on the scene and massacred nearly three-fourths of Khalifa's Ghazis. Sayyid Ahmad managed to escape to the west of the Indus."

Rishi Singh says: "It appears that even when he seemed successful, Syed Ahmad began losing his control over the tribal leadership. Many tribal chiefs began betraying him. For instance, at the time of taking over the fort of Attock, Khadi Khan of Hund alerted the Sikh commander, Hari Singh Nalwa, who with his 20,000 men attacked Syed Ahmad’s forces and killed three-fourths of the Khalifa’s Ghazis".

I think this content would be better suited in the exploits and military campaigns of both Hari Singh Nalwa and Syed Ahmed Barelvi, I don't think the amount of coverage in both sources, which are small paragraphs, justifies an entire article, though I could be wrong. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be redirected to the page Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa? The battle is already listed there-[11], and I think that on its own is sufficient. An entire article is superflous. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Best suited for a RFD to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa instead. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming. Star Mississippi 02:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Question[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV DonaldD23 talk to me 23:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Games, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are clear secondary sources cited; no need for deletion based on that alone. ChrisP2K5 (talk) 01:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per ChrisP2K5 MNewnham (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per ChrisP2K5 — Maile (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To analyze the secondary sources, especially with respect to depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has Secondary sources like NYT, etc. CSMention269 (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the NYT is a simple listing and comes nowhere near the depth required. Star Mississippi 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deleted the so-called reception. You can't take a 11-word mention before the program has even aired and call that "reception". At best, it is an anticipation, and is no more significant than being mentioned in the yellow pages. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion. I created this years ago when I was trying to tackle GSN originals that lacked articles. Admittedly, it does appear that there is unfortunately not very much out there in terms of secondary sourcing. On the other hand, while I do consider myself to be an inclusionist, I find it a bit hard to believe that a show that aired for multiple seasons on a national cable network lacks any or all notability to the point where it doesn't at least justify a short article documenting the show's existence. At this point, I find myself pretty disillusioned with some of this site's policies, so I'm not sure I'm in the best position to make a keep or delete vote here without a conflict of interest. With that said, I'll gladly let others decide the fate of this discussion. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the cited sources provide anything close to SIGCOV. A listing in a TV guide, or a passing mention in a newspaper, do not provide any value in terms of notability. I'm surprised to see all the WP:PERX here hanging their !vote on someone who, more than likely, didn't bother checking those secondary sources. Owen× ☎ 19:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Needs more citations that are WP: SIGCOV and WP: INDEPENDENT. All I can see is mere mentions and premier which incredibly is not a criteria for deletion and as such, there was online sources still existing on its creation date that could have taken coverage if the game show is/was notable. Personal point of views fails WP: THREE. Even the NYT article wasn't broadly covered! Otuọcha (talk) 06:23, 11 March 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, Shadow311 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming per WP:ATD; generic GSN show from their most generic producer. Nate • (chatter) 17:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming: I at least somewhat agree with the article creator that a multi-season show on a nationally-distributed service optimally should get the sufficient significant coverage to be deemed notable, but that's not a fait accompli, and the sourcing we do have here is thin enough that redirecting as an alternative to deletion is probably the best we can do. (For what it's worth, an earlier article on this show at That's the Question (U.S. game show) was deleted via PROD in 2015, which may explain why a program whose run coincided with an era when our notability standards in this topic area were much looser did not appear to have an article before 2018.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcquidditch: Appreciate you pointing that out as I was unaware a previous version of this existed. If this ends up with a consensus that it lacks notability (and it appears the discussion is trending that way), I would much rather see a redirect than a full deletion. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming. The sources applied do not sufficiently detail this page. A reasonable search finds nothing more useful. Redirecting with page history intact provides the opportunity to revive the page later when or if RS is found. BusterD (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as nominator I am agreeable to a redirect as suggested above. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Game_Show_Network#Former_original_programming. Changed from Delete after seeing the convincing arguments by other participants. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming. My previous vote was deleting per SIGCOV. But seeing the article again and the argument here. I found a good reason for the redirect. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MC Swat[edit]

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

The subject lacks substantial coverage in reputable third-party sources and fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:MUSICBIO. The existing sources do not establish notability effectively. Additionally, the source from middleeasteye.net is an interview, and its reliability is questionable, infomigrants.net is not reliable, and the article from The Guardian seems to rely heavily on hearsay. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no additional reliable sources beyond those currently cited. GSS ^💬 14:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Libya. GSS ^💬 14:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources used are exactly the first 3 hits I get in Gnews. Guardian is ok, the others don't appear to be RS, or somewhat so per the source bot here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I accepted this article via AfC (which was promotional when submitted, I fixed it a bit) — Middle East Eye isn't a bad source, though, it's an interview. Guardian was okay for me.

Here's another CNN piece, which isn't too bad. TLA^tlak 02:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN piece is an interview, and interviews are not considered independent sources, thus they do not meet WP:GNG criteria. Similarly, The Guardian's article falls into the category of a 'he says, she says' type of article. GSS ^💬 04:38, 6 March 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) 15:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like Oaktree, I think The Guardian is solid but the others are based mostly on what he says or not RS. S0091 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by DZRH-TV[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a TV guide, lacks any sources whatsoever. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We generally do not maintain programming lists for individual television stations, especially those that have been defunct for over fifty years. Nate • (chatter) 19:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubiously notable topic and completely unsourced, seems like a no-brainer.— Moriwen (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anant Patel[edit]

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

Local politician, does not meet the criteria at WP:NPOL. Sourcing (or lack of) is purely routine local media coverage. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a state level representative, not local politician. MrMkG (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MrMkG for your contribution. Could we please centre this discussion around how the available sources establish WP:BLP and WP:NPOL. Thank you, and may God bless you.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe nom has misunderstood, he's not a local politician but a state politician. Per WP:NPOL members of state legislatures are notable. Here's a profile from the Indian Express AusLondonder (talk) 15:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AusLondonder. The source they link confirms that he's a district-level politician for Navsari district.— Moriwen (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moriwen: Thanks for that, just to clarify though he represents that district in the Gujarat Legislative Assembly, the state parliament of Gujarat, so he's at an even higher level of government than district level. AusLondonder (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right! I stand corrected, thanks.— Moriwen (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. AusLondonder (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the subject meets WP:NPOL as a member of a province-wide legislative body. JTtheOG (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NPOL. Simple search brings up many reliable media news sources that can be used to expand the page on this politician. RangersRus (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes WP:NPOL as an Indian state legislator. There appears to be sufficient coverage to surpass WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as legislators no doubt pass WP:NPOL. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article probably should be improved, but the state legislature is not a "local" office, state legislators automatically pass WP:NPOL in a way that municipal politicians do not, and better sourcing is available to expand this with. Nomination appears to be mere tit-for-tat retaliation for an article the nominator created about a smalltown mayor being listed for AFD, but smalltown mayors and state legislators are not equivalent topics. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invasions of Kiratpur[edit]

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

The entirety of this article is written through primary, non WP:HISTRS sources. Sources like the Suraj Granth and Macaullife were explicitly deprecated here-[12]. Harinder Singh Mehboob's work is self published and the author is a poet, not a historian. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources are Raj-era or self-published on Xlibris. Nothing reliably sourced enough to merge into the page on Kiratpur.— Moriwen (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page should have 2-3 reliable sources to contemplate but this page has none with WP:RAJ era sources and a self published one. RangersRus (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Battle of Sangrana[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not noteworthy of an incident to have its own article- it appears to be a minor scuffle with minimal casualties, so the title including "Battle" seems to be a misnomer. From what I can tell, this event was the casus belli for a larger battle which is described here-[13] and per Surjit Singh Gandhi's book-[14]. This event is far better suited being accosted as the casus belli of the next battle wich actually seems to be consequential. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Best suited for a redirect as per Moriwen. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battle of Amritsar (1634), after merging any well-sourced content. The term "Battle of Sangrana" appears in a few books, so it doesn't seem like an implausible search term.— Moriwen (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I will go ahead and relist this an article for redirect. Thank you. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G11. (non-admin closure) 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Calderón[edit]

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

Blatant WP:PROMO article written entirely by User:Jesuscalderon as a personal résumé. Sources do not even come close to WP:GNG. InDimensional (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. InDimensional (talk) 11:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, is a resume, perhaps PROMO. What's used for sourcing are primary or non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article seems to just be a list of accomplishments without footnotes. a fairly large amount of the sources the article gives are self-published. Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11: Article was obviously created for self-promotion, not for actual encyclopaedic purposes. I've already tagged the page. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Miller (headmaster)[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this article about a headteacher and classicist, and added a passing reference in the local paper. I cannot see coverage to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Education, Schools, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. In addition to WP:GNG and WP:BIO, I also considered WP:NPROF, but no passing criteria there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are Who's Who (not reliable), two books by Mr. Miller, and the passing reference in a local paper added by nom. Insufficient for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A reasonable career, but nothing that adds up to notability. Athel cb (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Padmaja Venugopal[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is no reference to winning an election or being in a position of power in another party to qualify as a political activist WP:POLITICIAN ~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete her profile. she is not eligible to be listed on wikipedia. Jimsocial (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians -related deletion discussions. Spworld2 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 12.
Delete We have had plenty of American election season AfDs but of course it's also an election year in India so we will be getting more of this - articles about unelected candidates, many created as free promo. Coverage I can see relates to her changing political parties ahead of an election. AusLondonder (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 11:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maritime Page[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:WEB. It is used as a source in the RUSI and Bellingcat pages cited, but not actually mentioned. In a WP:BEFORE search I could only find passing mentions of the site in three BusinessWorld articles , citing it for the number of shipyards in the Philippines in 2021: [15] [16] [17]. Wikishovel (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Websites, and Norway. Wikishovel (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page claims that "Maritime Page has been acknowledged in publications by the Royal United Services Institute[1] and Bellingcat[2] for its contributions to maritime discussions." -- well, that's a bit misleading; neither source cited actually mentions Maritime Page, they just link it. And those are the only sources in the article.— Moriwen (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Brussels (1830)[edit]

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

This article seems to be about an imaginary event. It confuses two different things - (i) the outbreak of the Belgian Revolution in a series of riots in Brussels on 25 August 1830 and (ii) a genuine "siege" (or at least a battle inside Brussels) in mid-September 1830 known as the "September Days". Given the lack of sourced content and the basic confusion about scope which prevents improvement, I propose that deletion of this article seems the most straightforward way to remediate. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article isn’t even about a siege. It’s just “stuff that happened in Brussels in 1830” and us mostly generic background anyway. All of this is properly coved in Belgian Revolution anyway. Mccapra (talk) 09:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Belgium, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems well-intentioned but, as the nominator and commenter above point out, inaccurate and actively confusing.— Moriwen (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. gidonb (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of European films#Monaco. Owen× ☎ 17:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monégasque films of 2014[edit]

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

A list containing just three films, none of which have articles. References section is empty. Does not meet WP:NLIST AusLondonder (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and Europe. AusLondonder (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all There's a lot of these, please just merge/redirect where appropriate since I don't think individual discussions are necessary. Reywas92^Talk 13:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_European_films#Monaco. I search for "List of Monégasque films of" and again without the e not an é, and only this list shows up, so not enough to make an entire article for. If any are notable enough to be mentioned put them at List_of_European_films#Monaco. Dream Focus 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_European_films#Monaco. The three films listed are not notable, if the reader is looking for significant Monégasque films, we can redirect them to a place to find such. Samoht27 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Regardless of a G5, it's snowing. Star Mississippi 01:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyaloori Subhan Ali[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and I'm unable to find WP:GNG-level sources for this person. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Andhra Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Low level politician, no independent sources provided, none found. Draft was declined by three different AfC reviewers and rejected by a fourth. After inquiring about the rejection at the AfC help desk, article creator ignored the provided advice and moved the draft into mainspace themselves and contested MPGuy’s prod without comment or improvement. --Finngall ^talk 07:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creator has attempted a move back to draftspace, which was quickly reverted. --Finngall ^talk 13:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Not a major political figure who have received significant press coverage. Fails WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just winning a local election does not make him notable per NPOL; no sources found. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 20:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Killarnee (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable per our guidelines. Nobody (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly failes WP:NPOL, also WP:GNG. Agree with Nom! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article creator has been blocked as a sock, making this article eligible for G5 speedy deletion. --Finngall ^talk 19:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Does not meet GNG. DrowssapSMM 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 11:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (Notability can be demonstrated.) (non-admin closure)‎

Lego pneumatics[edit]

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

Does not seem to satisfy GNG. I couldn't find any independent sources that provide significant coverage of Lego pneumatics in general outside of hobby blogs. A few magazines reported on a Lego pneumatic V8 engine (e.g. [18]) but they do not discuss the pneumatics in detail. This should be redirected to Lego Technic#Pneumatics. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHWB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Frederik Waage Beck[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable. Fails ARTIST, SIGCOV and GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Of the four references in the article, the first is self-published, the second is inaccessible, and the last two (the BBC and New York Times) don't even seem to mention this person. Elspea756 (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. There is no reliable sourcing that the subject is part of the incident described in the article - Iraqi refugees removed from a Danish church). --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Rodriguez (journalist)[edit]

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

I am not seeing any actual significant coverage of her that would meet the WP:GNG. Lone ref is a 2010 biography published by her then-employer, and I am not finding much significant chatter about her in the time since. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Florida. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KIJR-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLPS-LP[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources in the article are FCC notifications. Let'srun (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rad[edit]

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

Sources only mention Rad in passing, do not support notability. Violates NOTDIRECTORY. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not have SIGCOV, and I couldn't find any reliable sources with a quick google search. DrowssapSMM 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage beyond a Sound on Sound interview in 2015. The article also features no information about Matt and is instead dominated by an unnecessary discography. InDimensional (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PyRoom[edit]

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

All of the sources in the article are primary. I can't find any secondary sources on the subject, let alone ones that would be reliable enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The sourcing for this software page is not ideal. However, there might be some coverage in older geek books or magazines similar to CHIP. Old-AgedKid (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artisteer[edit]

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

The current sources do not establish notability. The only two secondary sources I could find were this and this, neither of which are reliable sources. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was written by a user named "Artisteer", and their only contributions to Wikipedia were on this article. There may be a WP: COI, but given that their last edits were many years ago, I'm not sure what can be done about that now. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find some software blogs saying it was abandoned about 10 yrs ago, then this [19], neither of which is RS. I don't see any reliable sources we'd use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PBM (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per former nominations. Since the former deletion, there is no source for passing WP: GNG and WP: NMUSIC. Otuọcha (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Michigan. Otuọcha (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per former nominations and deletions via AFD. I commend WP: SALT Otuọcha (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT if necessary. I voted to delete in the 2020 AfD for this band and my reasoning is exactly the same now. They have indeed released several albums and played many shows, but the reliable music media simply has not noticed. And again, "shared the stage with prominent musicians" is irrelevant if it was at large festivals or if they were the cost-saving local opening act. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Otuọcha and Doomsdayer: this band lacks significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources (WP:GNG is not met); and it doesn't approach any of the alternative criteria at WP:NMUSIC. However, this is only the first recreation after deletion, which occurred over 4 years ago. I'm not sure this namespace is problematic enough to require WP:SALT. JFHJr (㊟) 17:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG, and I made some improvements. Eastview2018 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relistiing to assess content changes since nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: AllMusic reviews are iffy for reliability, the rest are promotional pieces. This is the only mention of them I can find [20], I suppose it's a RS. I don't see much of anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: strong delete, I can't find any real coverage of this band from reliable outlets online. InDimensional (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Active Training and Education Trust[edit]

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

I could not find any significant coverage under its name or "Superweeks". Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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