< March 19	March 21 >

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jihin Radzuan[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NKICK and WP:NMMA for not having singificant coverage from independent, relliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not only passing mention. All the sources found are either routine reports for fight announcements or fight results or interview pieces (not independent source) which can NOT be used to contribute to the notability requirements. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Malaysia. Cassiopeia talk 23:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and completely lacks SIGCOV and GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She fails to meet WP:NMMA. Being ranked as the #5 challenger in her promotion is not the same as being top 10 worldwide, especially when the champion is ranked 10th. The promotion she fights for is the primary source of references, with the rest being fight results and promotions. No evidence of significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG or of meeting WP:ANYBIO. Her kickboxing medal at the Southeast Asian Games came in a division where everyone won a medal and she lost her only fight. Nothing to show any SNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 26 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!} 23:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fiction employing parallel universes[edit]

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

We have a decent-ish Parallel universes in fiction from which this was spun off, creating a bad list - one that fails WP:LISTN/WP:NLIST, WP:OR as well as WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA. WP:NOTTVTROPES - this is just, sadly, WP:FANCRUFTy list of randomly selected works that include this concept - some of them are pretty far fetched, too (ex. Avengers: Endgame which does not even mention this term in the article). The aforementioned Parallel universes in fiction article will do just fine (although it has some listy content that needs to be pruned). At best, per WP:ATD-R, this can be redirected to the main article - maybe someone will fine something from here useful for merging or otherwise one day. PS. On the off chance this is kept, it obviously needs a rename too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we already have a Parallel universes in fiction article we do not need another. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This definitely falls under WP:OLIST as over-extensive - the entire isekai genre would have to be listed here, and that's just the start! ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO and redundant. This is already covered in a more reliable way at Parallel universes in fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Simply rehashes Parallel universes in fiction. TH1980 (talk) 01:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have Parallel universes in fiction as a prose article covering the topic, which itself already contains overly long lists of examples. Having a separate list on top of that is simply redundant. Rorshacma (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK and WP:TNT. As noted, we already have a very similar article, so this is a content fork. This is a list of dozens, if not hundreds, of examples, but only a dozen citations, some of which are not even reliable. I've long been an advocate of SF here on Wikipedia, but this is so bad as to be detrimental to the project. 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom + other comments --Devoke water 19:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We should pretty much never have both a list article and a prose article on the same topic when it comes to these kinds of fiction-related topics, and this is redundant to parallel universes in fiction as pointed out above. I see nothing to WP:PRESERVE here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 26 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!} 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Africa Wildlife Park[edit]

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

Lacks continuous coverage, little to no sources online, with the exception of ticket booking websites. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Pfeiffer, Lori Rohlk; Morris, Paul (2001). Insiders' Guide: Phoenix. Guilford, Connecticut: Insiders' Guide. p. 154. ISBN 1-57380-183-6. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Think of Out of Africa not as a zoo but as a small version of Sea World that substitutes exotic tigers for the killer whales. The big cats can be seen in natural habitats developed for them at the park as well as in an unrehearsed show called Tiger Splash. Yes, they romp in the water with staff members and perform various tricks. Species include white tigers and Bengals. There are nine animal shows in all, which give the park a chance to show off its other inhabitants, including lions, coatis, foxes, bears, cougars, wolves, pythons, and exotic birds. But Tiger Splash, usually performed once daily, is the most popular. The grounds also include a cafe and gift shop."
2. Weir, Bill (2011) [2011]. Arizona (4 ed.). Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Traveler. p. 109. ISBN 978-1-4262-0713-6. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Big cats and other fauna in the Out of Africa Wildlife Park roam within near-natural enclosures. The animals housed in the 104-acre park reveal their behavior and personalities during "African Bush Safaris," wildlife preserve tours, and wildlife encounter demonstrations. For the exciting Tiger Splash, staffers get into a pool and coax tigers to join them and play with "prey" toys. Try to arrive early to make the most of your visit; allow at least four hours at the park. Take I-17 Exit 287, turn west and go 3 miles on Arizona 260 toward Cottonwood, then turn left at the traffic light onto Cherry Road."
3. Wyman, Bill. "Out of Africa Wildlife Park". Frommer's. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article gives the park one out of three stars. The article notes: "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my. And zebras and giraffes and wildebeests, oh yes. That’s what you’ll encounter at this sprawling wildlife park between Camp Verde and Cottonwood. ... One of the park’s most popular attractions, especially with kids, is the Tiger Splash, in which big cats and their caretakers demonstrate predator-prey interactions in a large pool."
4. Golfen, Bob (2003-06-18). "Going on Safari: Animal attraction plans move to more expansive home". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Harrison and his wife, Prayeri, founded Out of Africa 15 years ago on the Fort McDowell Reservation, north of Fountain Hills. The aim was to keep the animals in their natural states and to understand their behavior in terms of the logical results of nature and instinct. ... This is the last summer season for Out of Africa at its 16-acre location. Soon, construction will begin on a 125-acre site in Camp Verde that's designed to take the wildlife park from a local attraction to a national destination, complete with a hotel and two complete restaurants. The park will close at Fort McDowell next May 31, Harrison said. Then the staff will undertake the daunting task of transporting all the wild animals 100 miles north by truck. Fifteen tigers, 17 lions, a pair of giraffes, antelopes, African wart hogs, bears, wolves, a small herd of zebras, birds, monkeys, snakes, lizards and a huge African porcupine are among the animals that will be on the road."
5. Naylor, Roger (2021-05-12). "Glamping, Airstreams, yurts and a caboose: How to reserve the coolest lodgings in Arizona". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "You don’t actually sleep with the lions on this glamping adventure, but it might feel that way if a throaty roar fills your tent in the night. Sometimes, the lions at Out of Africa Wildlife Park wake up hungry and just like everyone to know it. The Safari Village in Camp Verde consists of eight tents on the property of Out of Africa, lined up near the elands and wildebeests. The roomy tents measure 120 square feet and are furnished with beds, dresser, lighting, an ice chest and a propane heater."
6. Naylor, Roger (2013-04-13). "Out of Africa Gives Visitors a Closer Look at Exotic Animals" (pages 1 and 2). The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Tiger Splash is the signature show of Out of Africa Wildlife Park in Camp Verde. It provides plenty of thrills for the crowd sitting on shaded bleachers."
  The article notes: "Nestled in the high desert of Camp Verde, 90 miles north of Phoenix, Out of Africa is home to 400 exotic animals, including dozens of large predators. The preserve is spread across 104 rolling acres in the Black Hills, a setting that bears a striking resemblance to many regions of Africa. The park began as a research project that Harrison and his wife, Prayeri, began in their home. Their first Out of Africa opened on 16 acres in Fountain Hills in 1988. They moved to Camp Verde in 2005. The larger property allowed for a greater number and diversity of animals, as well as larger habitats. The spacious habitats and proximity to animals provide a more intimate experience than one might expect."
7. Harrington, Candy B. (Winter 2004). "Escape The Winter Blues In Phoenix And Scottsdale". Emerging Horizons. Vol. 7, no. 1. ProQuest 233398299.
  The article notes: "Another place to get a close-up look at wildlife is at the Out of Africa Wildlife Park ... located northeast of Scottsdale in Fountain Hills. It's just a 25-minute drive from the Sky Harbor Airport and it's a great place to spend the day. This is not your typical wildlife park. When you first enter you will notice a number of exotic animals roaming comfortably through their spacious enclosures, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. The shows are quite unique, as the handlers encourage the animals to use their natural instincts. As you can imagine this produces some edge-of-your-seat moments, especially during the Tiger Splash show where the handlers actually become the prey. There's plenty of room up front for wheelchairs ..."
8. Danz, Harold P. (1999). Cougar!. Athens, Ohio: Swallow Press. pp. 37–39. ISBN 0-8040-1014-5. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Out of Africa Wildlife Park at Fountain Hills, Arizona, is an unusual wildlife exhibit that offers a somewhat different perspective on the cougar. Coowners Dean and Bobbi Harrison maintain more than twenty-five species of mammals, reptiles, and birds in a compound that attracts more than one hundred thousand visitors a year. Animals are both on display and in performance. In addition to white tigers, tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars, a caracal, servals, and bobcats, the Harrisons also have five cougars. A cougar is used in a “show” with two bears and three wolves. The objective of this mixed-species performance is to demonstrate that trained animals of different species can get along together. Although in the performances that I witnessed the cougar seemed somewhat diffident or aloof, ..."
9. Hecht, Jon (2018-06-19). "Out of Africa wildlife park plans to expand, possibly double in size". Journal AZ. Larson Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "Driving on State Route 260 between Camp Verde and Cottonwood, it can be hard to miss Out of Africa Wildlife Park. Full of exotic animals, the park takes up 103 acres of land, and has become a fixture of the lower Verde Valley. ... Out of Africa Wildlife Park moved to its current location from a smaller park on Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation east of Scottsdale. When park owners Dean and Prayeri Harrison relocated the park, they became involved with land developer Bill Jump, who is now a co-owner of the park. ... In the past several years, the park has also been toying with entertainment options beyond the park’s wildlife. Two years ago, a company installed a zipline throughout the park, and in the past year it added horseback rides and Jeep rides provided A Day In The West, a Sedona tour company."
10. Reep, Erin (2004-05-11). "Out of Africa scrambling to relocate animals". East Valley Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "Harrison speaks gently to the animals. He is surprisingly upbeat for a man faced with the daunting task of relocating 300 wild animals, their habitats and other buildings from the park's 16-acre home off the Beeline Highway on the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation to a 104-acre site near Camp Verde. Fort McDowell served the park an eviction notice May 5, stating it had until June 30 to vacate the property and restore it to its natural condition. The eviction came after Out of Africa advised the tribe it intended to leave the property and move to the new site."
11. Roland, Rachel. "Take a Day Trip to Out of Africa Wildlife Park!". Arizona Foothills Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "Recently our family took a fun trip to the Out of Africa Wildlife Park (whatever you do, do not call it a zoo). ... Once you pay your admission fee, ($36 for adults, $20 for children 3-12 years, under 3 are free), you are free to explore the park. However, I highly recommend you head straight for the Serengeti Safari Tour (you receive a ticket for this with your admission). On this tour, you are taken through Out Of Africa's Serengeti - a wide open space with many animals - giraffes, zebras, ostriches, antelope, Watusi cattle, and more! You get to experience this on an open aired bus or tram and the tour is narrated by the driver, who can be quite entertaining."
12. "Best Safari Park: Lee G. Simmons Conservation Park and Safari wins". USA Today. 2019-05-03. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "Situated in the picturesque Black Hills of Camp Verde, Arizona, Out of Africa occupies 100 acres of rolling hills where mammals, birds and reptiles from around the globe roam. Visitors can embark on a 40-minute safari through the park’s own Serengeti preserve or go behind the scenes with a member of the animal care team."
13. Reep, Erin (2004-02-11). "Wildlife park not out of Fountain Hills yet". East Valley Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "Lions, bears, giraffes and other wildlife at Out of Africa Wildlife Park will have to wait quite a while longer before they can roam in a more spacious location. The park originally planned to move from its 16-acre site near Fountain Hills to a 104-acre property near Camp Verde this summer, said park president Dean Harrison."
14. "Best Place To Hug A Hyena: Out of Africa Wildlife Park". Phoenix New Times. 2001-09-20. ProQuest 207457133. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24.
  The article notes: "Out of Africa is not a zoo or a circus, but it combines the best of both to teach us about animals. Its garden setting puts us mere feet from tigers, lions, bears and wolves -- the panther is so close we can smell its breath. Out of Africa -- for us, and for the animals -- is out of sight."
15. Ropp, Thomas (1995-12-25). "A white (tiger) Christmas at Valley wildlife park". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2024-03-24. Retrieved 2024-03-24 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "She and her husband Steve paid $300 Saturday to play for 15 minutes with two month-old white tiger cubs at Out Of Africa Wildlife Park near Fountain Hills. ... The 10-pound, blue-eyed tigers, making their public debut, were shown in the wildlife park's cougar habitat. The St. Jeans were the first to play with the cubs."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Out of Africa Wildlife Park to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ITSACASTLE and Cunard's sources. Toughpigs (talk) 17:07, 24 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. Editors are free to create a Redirect from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alister De Bellotte[edit]

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

Playing football for a national team doesn't give automatic notability, so neither does coaching. This manager is covered in passing mentions only, failing the WP:SIGCOV guideline. I only found mentions such as this, and of course databases. Several/most biographical details are in the dark. Being a name in a list at Grenada national football team#Coaching history should suffice. Geschichte (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Grenada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given the number of blank spaces and the almost total lack of reasonable sources, this fails almost every standard. Anwegmann (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grenada national football team#Coaching history, regards. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a trivial mention in R7 but nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is my understanding of the longstanding consensus that managers, owners, coaches, trainers, and other staff persons of notable teams are not automatically notable. Without good sourcing, this fails. Bearian (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 19:24, 27 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 Milky Way#Etymology and mythology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of names for the Milky Way[edit]

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

Big list of mostly unsourced translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Mythology, Astronomy, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a cut and dry case of WP:NOTDICT. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the cross-cultural grouping into common terms (such as associations with birds, or rivers, or streets) is interesting. Maybe just delete the large "List of names in various languages", but those translations related to the "Common names" section can be kept and moved there. Tocharianne (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Common names section (plus Aboriginal Australian languages) to Milky Way#Etymology and mythology, and redirect. That part does not fit to a dictionary and should a have a place somewhere on Wikipedia. I think it's still little enough to fit into the main article. If that's perceived as too much, I'd be fine with keep, too. Daranios (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Daranios. Good compromise? Bearian (talk) 21:36, 25 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!} 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of names of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

Big list of mostly unsourced translations. WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. PepperBeast (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:LIST. Here is another list of names of something, numbering in the dozens, but with only seven (7) citations. If you want to keep it, you had better find a lot more coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 25 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!} 23:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ho-gun[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT toobigtokale (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 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. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Won-nam[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 22:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1994 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC), he is mentioned there, it's the only tournament he played in and scored two goals. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT. toobigtokale (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 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!} 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Hyon-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't appear to pass WP:NSPORT. toobigtokale (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 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!} 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

João Castro Neves[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Content is basically resume content written in a resume way. Nothing approaching even 1 GNG source. At first blush econoTimes looks lengthy but it has no author and a disclaimer by EconoTimes and appears to be flowerly self-written bio. Some concern that the creator has a total of 39 edits, nearly all on this person, the company they work for (3G capital) and articles on two other employees of 3G capital. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Food and drink, Architecture, Finance, Brazil, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete successful career but nothing to indicate encyclopedic notability. Mccapra (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There is literally one reliable source - Wall Street Journal. That goes nowhere close to meeting WP:BLP. In 2024, everyone knows that we are not a free web host for one's resume. For the record, he has fewer than half of my connections on LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 25 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondences (journal)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a G4, however with only one independent source and the concerns from the prior AfD, I'm still not sure it's notable. Star Mississippi 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 12:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly any improvement since the previous AfD: just one independent source (so misses WP:GNG), not indexed in any selective database (so misses WP:NJournals). The discussion on citation data is irrelevant, and looking at the listings in Asprem editorial, they are frankly just pathetic. Note that there is another copy of this article at User:Schenkstroop/sandbox3. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The journal has significant coverage in four reliable, independent sources and thus passes WP:GNG. Schenkstroop (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in-passing mentions don't satisfy GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 22:30, 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!} 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, this is a University post about the journal, they don't seem to be associated with the journal [1], I think it would be independent. I don't see the Univ. of Pennsylvania as being on the list of journal staff. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That looks like a standard call for submissions to me, certainly written by the journal staff or the guest editor for the special issue. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a piece of publicity, essentially just an ad written by the journal staff themselves. That UPenn agreed to publish it provides only the very slightest amount of support in favor of the journal's notability, maybe, but it's fundamentally inaccurate to call it a "University post about the journal". Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Seems to be just enough with the sourcing found. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The consensus last time was delete (I'm assuming it was deleted but then recreated?) and hardly anything seems to have changed since then. Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:36, 14 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The journal seems to have been consistently publishing for over ten years (see https://correspondencesjournal.com/), with roughly two issues per year. When I google "esotericism journal" it's a top hit. Whirlywyrd (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — Whirlywyrd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Having been around for some time is irrelevant (see WP:N). And if this is a "top hit" on Google, it should be easy to find reliable sources that discuss the journal in depth. --Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at the article contents had me in the middle - seeing that this article has been listed for deletion before has made me lean towards delete, and spending quite some time searching for sources on both Google and EBSCO just looking for any hint of noteworthiness has not really done anything to move the needle in the other direction. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:52, 28 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InstallJammer[edit]

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

This article also fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The three sources provided in the article are solely from the official website of the software. I was unable to locate credible sources that provide comprehensive and in-depth coverage of the topic, which are necessary for a standalone article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 6 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!} 19:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the bank page. Moem-Meom (talk) 11:23, 14 March 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) 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NPRODUCT. I'm not sure what "the bank page" means in terms of a redirect. If there is a suitable redirect, I would support that. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 28 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!} 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epos Now[edit]

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

Just an SME that fails ncorp Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 17:54, 13 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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please explain the acronym SME, as a reader is completely lost to what that could be. Nate • (chatter) 23:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, it refers to Small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up the overwhelming majority of UK companies Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is subpar, but I think their POS system has enough coverage. US News [2], TechRadar [3], Startups.co.uk [4]. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:08, 17 March 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) 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here I found some of the sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 although they are not an in-depth coverage, yet these reviews, awards can't be neglected. Atighot (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there are much more reliable sources than those cited in the current version of the page. The organization is pretty notable, per TechRadar and other media coverage. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 15:47, 26 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!} 23:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Kultgen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails WP:BIO. There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. The rest are all either reviews of his books, or minor article about being sued over a podcast. One or more of his books could possibly be considered notable, but notability is not inherited, so those articles need to be created separately. Also note this was deleted back in 2011 and re-created in 2012. I haven't seen the deleted version as the history is not merged. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to pass AUTHOR with reviews [5], [6]. With the NY Times article, I think we're ok for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of articles about the George Carlin AI special, mentioning this person, and the lawsuit involved. Depending how it goes, could either be famous or infamous. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: widespread, active coverage going on with George Carlin. She was ^afairy 02:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's only one reliable source here that covers him in any detail, a NYT piece. is evidence of a BEFORE failure; the NYT so rarely writes about people that no other RS is covering, the more prudent move is to assume you've missed something else and keep looking. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 21 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 Ireland women Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Loughran[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Irish women's cricketer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and Ireland. JTtheOG (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Loughran has played in a Women's T20 International match between two full member sides, fulfilling notability requirements for WP:OFFICIALCRICKET. CarnivalSorts (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CarnivalSorts: That just means that coverage is likely to exist for a player. JTtheOG (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more coverage from the Irish Independent and RTÉ. CarnivalSorts (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ireland women Twenty20 International cricketers Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coverage is certainly increasing, but not sure there's enough yet for an article, although close, redirect for now and then convert once there's a couple more sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. This is slightly complicated, so I'll explain this in detail. Even discarding the participants with canvassing concerns, we are left with justification that is fairly evenly split between both sides. This does not necessarily mean that there isn’t a consensus, because the strength of argument is more important than numbers.

Examining the arguments, on one hand, those advocating deletion correctly point out that notability requires independent sources, and they argue that this is limited here and that the significant coverage is borderline. However, a number of these votes are not quite as strong, as G4 does not apply to articles previously deleted under speedy deletion, and AFD is not for cleaning up promotional concerns. Those advocating keeping the article dispute the first claim, claiming he has received enough secondary coverage, roughly agreeing with @I'm tla's table. They argue that ENT and INTERVIEW could apply here, although these connections are weak, and the essays used by keep voters do not hold much weight.

Whether coverage is strong enough to demonstrate notability can be challenging to objectively prove, and we rely on y'all, the community, to make these calls. No consensus has been made for the aforementioned areas, and given that there has been extensive discussion over two weeks and that no more votes have occurred in the past few days, a second RELIST will likely be a waste of time.

These uncertainties can very well result in a trip back, so unless new sourcing renders it unnecessary, feel free to renominate this article in a few months. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 07:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jin (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

I can't find any reasonable purpose for a standalone article. I noticed this could be vandalism since the parenthesis isn't movable except by an admin. Well, I can't find sources which didn't provide me enough reasons to be inclusive. Fails WP: GNG. The founding company doesn't seem to be notable or reach any WP: ORG and some of not all seems to base on the company and not the subject (there could be mentions) but still Notability is not inherited. While I believe Notability is not permanent, The young subject can be notable in the future All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: hello, I'm the person who accepted this out of AfC. i agree with you that the company is not quite meeting notability, which is why i rejected it, as the sources are clearly predominately about the founder. the sources in question, though, include Billboard, The Source, El Caribe, and Independent Nigeria, all of which profile Justin Jin quite in-depth and are generally reliable. She was ^afairy 07:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have found that before nom'ing this, as the article is a G5G4 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG G4 applies for the articles which are accepted from draft too. What i knew or personally believe was only for mainspace articles. DIV IN E 11:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your point is here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you’re administrator of english Wikipedia, i want to know from you that does G4 applies for the Wikipedia articles which were approved from draft where multiple contributors has already participated? DIV IN E 14:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can read it yourself at WP:CSD#G4. But yes, drafts moved to article space are included, as long as they are still substantively the same as the deleted article. It matters not that other editors have touched it, only that the material is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn’t identical then why we re’ debating here in deletion discussion. DIV IN E 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fails WP: ANYBIO, WP: CREATIVE and WP: BASIC#1 since it clearly states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability where the articles if not all talks about the teenager and a non notable company he founded. I am also sensing WP: UPE since this page from the previous AFD discussion and salting when i wanted to move to Justin Jin (removing the parenthesis). I have tried to take info from all the sources, but they kept talking the same thing about the subjects media industry. I meant there is no context or importance of meeting notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G5G4 of Justin Jin - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it doesn't quite make sense where your G5 vote is coming from, UtherSRG: if the article's author isn't blocked, and in any case, i believe i've already applied some relatively substantial edits. She was ^afairy 12:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! I should have said G4. I've amended. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'm not sure that works here. the above discussion took place one year ago, and according to the source assessment table, 0 of them are repeated? She was ^afairy 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G4 is about content, not sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it applies to sufficiently identical copies, and according to the wayback machine, there are very significant differences, completely failing G4. She was ^afairy 13:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sufficiently identical is vague. The content is essentially the same. There is no new information in the new article, there are no new assertions of notability. For me, that is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The nominator's peculiar passion to delete this page and the imprecise G4 rationale by an administrator (having been deleted over a year ago, with strong changes and a massive increase in sourcing, and no hoaxes) seem to reflect a common trend I've seen on Wikipedia. Young, relatively notable subjects such as Rishab Jain, Avi Schiffmann, Jenk Oz, Kevin Leyes (which has since been recreated under Leyes (singer) due to new sourcing, which is evidently the case here as well, are often a target of editors. For instance, comments by editors like "I don't see what is special about this kid" is borderline derogatory. (I'm excluding sports people by the way, who have relatively lower requirements for notability). I came across this person when creating a draft of a different person of the same name, which firsthand pulled up a USA Today Contributor piece, which does not establish notability, and hence why I disregarded it. The sourcing presented here is strong (~~six~~ four generally reliable sources), though I'm not going to place my vote just yet.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://billboard.ar/la-carrera-musical-secreta-de-justin-jin/		WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
https://www.elcaribe.com.do/gente/a-y-e/de-nino-le-encantaban-los-videojuegos-ahora-justin-jin-esta-construyendo-un-imperio-mediatico/		Newspaper of record		✔ Yes
https://www.excelsior.com.mx/trending/justin-jin-entre-la-innovacion-y-la-travesia-en-la-era-digital/1636100		established Mexican paper	~ ChatGPT?	~ Partial
https://thesource.com/2023/12/28/inside-justin-jins-poybo-empire/	s	WP:RSMUSIC		✔ Yes
https://independent.ng/teenagers-are-building-africas-youth-media-empire/		WP:NGRS	WP:100WORDS	✔ Yes
https://nl.mashable.com/entertainement/9316/minecraft-made-justin-jin-a-star-now-hes-a-media-mogul		~ WP:MASHABLE		~ Partial
https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/leaders/exclusive-teen-mogul-justin-jin-agrees-to-divest-some-media-assets-to-expand-african/fqfvl4l	Prob press release	~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER	~ WP:ROUTINE	✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/meet-the-billion-view-digital-upstart-and-its-16-year-old-founder/		WP:NGRS		✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

TLA^tlak 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY: Sources 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are interviews. Interviews are not independent and do not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An overachiever in Silicon Valley who has been discussed in a myriad of publications including ones presented in the “source assessment table”. According to the General Notability Guideline, “Significant coverage” is a factor and these reliable sources do address Mr. Justin Jin in great detail. 205.220.129.230 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does three or four article talking about a media company and their founder notable? The articles is lacking context and should not be inherited from his "media company." Otherwise, It fails Business People guideline. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Otuọcha your line of inquiry in this discussion appears to be quite flawed, and overall a bit questionable. isn't there much more than three or four articles which all vastly revolve around Justin Jin? how are they lacking context? you should also probably review WP:INHERITED. the hyperfocus on Justin Jin is why I believe the company itself falls short of WP:NCORP. the articles profile, analyze him, but not exactly much about what the company itself does. the company is likely a too soon case. i agree with TLA's summary, although I think business insider should be treated completely as a press release and routine coverage. She was ^afairy 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By TLA's summary, if you're referring to the source assessment table, I've already pointed out that interviews are not considered independent and are deemed as primary sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to adjust my table, but from what I understand is that the independence of interviews depend on the actual content. Is there anywhere that specifically states that interviews are not considered independent, full stop? TLA^tlak 03:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the policy that says "independence of interviews depend on the actual content"? WP:PRIMARY says Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Here, the interviewer is obviously involved, and the interviewee is the subject who is talking about themselves. For clarity, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:ALLPRIMARY and WP:SPIP discuss interviews as sources. Majority of the sources here are interviews, which do not count towards GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for clarity because I participate in AfD often and reviewing pages. I've come across that in many other AfDs (I don't want to link to them to canvas) but there is one going on right now in which two autopatrolled+NPP users have stated although the interview itself is primary, the information the source often provides before the interview can be considered a secondary source. In addition, the WP:PRIMARYNEWS you linked to me contains an example of an interview primary source: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. If the reporter simply relays what the politician says that is primary, and a talk show host interviewing a celebrity is just a plain question & answer, and that's primary. These sources are far from that. I also see that you said below that WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, and that is true, but it is useful and there really is no other place that writes extensively about a rather relevant policy. TLA^tlak 01:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists or news publications typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution). But, the gist will not have significant coverage and the point here is that they do not count towards GNG. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and has no weightage in AfDs. Not sure if you have noticed the last part of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, "...can be considered as evidence of notability". Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "myriad"? Surely that's an exaggeration. Deb (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Interviews can be a secondary sources per WP:INTERVIEW. The Source and the Daily Trust articles only have 10-15% quoted from Jin, the rest is analysis or comparison, so this meets biographical notability requirements. Captain☎ 10:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CaptainBottle (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
CaptainBottle: WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're relatively very new perhaps days to Enwiki. The article may be filled as WP: REFBOMB. There can be WP: LOTSOFSOURCES yet no credibility. I know how Nigerian Media works per Independent Nigeria, Daily Trust, etc and I must say; the sources just treated the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry. In analysis, there is always a way to show Notability. I can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier, or any award for media excellence since he is the CEO of Poybo. Being the CEO of Poybo is not enough to be inclusive and the media industry is not notable per WP: ORG/WP:N unlike Amazon, Dangote Group, etc or like business moguls who had won awards of excellence or profiled as an influential person". I believe I have cleared that Many sources are not enough! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Otuọcha this is rather incoherent. If the pubs you are referring to are treating the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry, what do you mean by can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier? Poybo doesn’t have an article for notability inheriting and awards are not necessary for establishing notability. I would also advise against the possible WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion. TLA^tlak 03:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be my last comment. I don't understand when you stated WP: BLUDGEON. Well, per WP: SATISFY, "Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not." All I am saying is this article is a G4 which I realized later after trying to remove the unnecessary parenthesis. For the article in question, it fails GNG and not quite SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is really thin making it a borderline case for the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG; a compromise is inadvisable in a businessperson biography. Nor am I convinced of the "independent" and "multiple" aspects of the sources presented. Regarding the latter, all the sources are saying more or less the same thing, which is very little. Regarding the former, I am taking into considering previous history of the article, the fact that non-regular editors have shown to vote keep on this article which was never indexed and is under a title with disambiguator. The fact that the sources say more or less the same thing also contributes to a lack of confidence in them regarding independence. Also adding to the same, is the fact that the sources presented are of Latin American and African origin while the subject is Canadian, though there is no convincing case made that the subject has predominantly and exclusively worked in those far away places. Finally, the claim to notability in itself is really thin. I get the idea that it's a young person who's been doing some things, but it's hard to see a coherent and persuasive picture of the totality of his activities, how integral he may be to those and what if any lasting impact they might have. I see an element of WP:CRYSTAL in the coverage that exists and in a potential presumption of notability we might make. If he stopped doing everything he's been doing today, would we consider him a notable businessperson in 2044? The answer for me is a firm "no", on the merits of the sourcing presented. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is no inheriting in terms of notability from the Poybo company here — it actually seems the other way around or at the very least equal. As well, Poybo doesn’t have an article for inheriting. Coverage revolves primarily around the subject, not the company. WP:G4 is also utterly inapplicable — not only being a speedy delete, the previous AfD (12 months ago) cited none of these new applicable sources as Shewasafairy noted, the current article writes about a new company, and has potential for expansion. The African sourcing does make sense per the selling of a subsidiary or whatever, but that really shouldn’t be hypothesized/considered about and is not a policy. As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG. With WP:Interviews#Notability and reviewing past AfDs and discussions regarding the independence of interviews, interviews can help establish notability, and regardless the interview sourcing used here has considerable secondary content. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing. I’ll also say that the nominator’s rationales throughout has been a bit contradictory, maybe that's a language thing, but that doesn’t play into my analysis. Neither the previous history of an article nor whatever SPA may be going on here should be any part of determining notability. Unless, of course, an article is recreated under G4 with no substantial changes or additions to sourcing, which is not the case here. WP:CRYSTAL should apply to the Wikipedia project, not apply to the coverage itself; on the other hand, if I’m going to counter crystal, what person would stop doing everything he’s been doing today, and would more coverage appear rather soon that would undoubtedly push this arguably borderline subject over the edge, much less by 2044? I think so. Finally, the claim to notability — having founded what a couple sources deem the largest teen media companies — here is strong enough (it was added a couple hours after Usedtobecool’s vote). To be fair, WP:TOOSOON was originally a potential consideration for me, which is why I was a little hesitant to place a straight-up vote, but with further review of the sourcing and that the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here, this meets and exceeds our notability criteria based on real policy. TLA^tlak 02:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very weak argument expanded into wall of text. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. I believe he fits none of the categories. Stop bringing essays into XfD arguments, they are not policies. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing, Could you please provide the sources in the reply below? I would like to review. While the secondary content from interviews can be added into the article, the interview source as a whole is not independent. Therefore, it does not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was not my intention to make a wall of text/essay. My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes. TLA^tlak 11:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Entertainment? you’re modifying your own comments. DIV IN E 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above users, Fairy and TLA, what has to be noted here is that while WP: Interview is not fully reliable, the articles written so long before the interview or partial interview are subjected to reliable sources. DIV IN E 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. it may be worth disregarding the G4. i disagreed with it, but after the changes added a couple days ago it objectively directly addresses the concern with no new assertions of notability. She was ^afairy 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my comments regarding the source assessment table and WP:INTERVIEW essay [7][8]. I am willing to change my vote to keep if someone can provide three independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with you directly calling these sources containing small portions of an interview a non-independent source, but here are just three with nothing quoted from the subject, two of which are RS and one is an established WP:NEWSORG: Billboard, Independent, Excélsior (this reads slightly promotional from the start, but later on Pacheco writes this success comes with increasing scrutiny of the company's labor and ethical practices, especially regarding the exploitation of young creators and the hiring of workers in precarious conditions in developing countries (translated) so it's probably a Google Translate issue. TLA^tlak 11:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside for a moment the fact that, again, it's Billboard Argentina covering a Canadian figure, not Billboard US or Billboard Canada, are we sure Billboard Argentina is the real deal? Looks like you're inheriting its reliability and reputation from Billboard, a US organisation. The links in the about section of that article just reload the page, and the twitter link takes you to an account with 200K followers compared to 14M for Billboard. Clicking through Billboard Argentina indicates its ownership and licensing belongs to an Argentinian company, compared to Billboard Japan or Billboard Brasil which state in the lead that they are associated with the US Billboard. I go back to concerns I raised in my !vote again. We usually associate this kind of brand theft, if it is that, with covert advertisers and spammers, and often even covert Wikipedia UPEs. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the real deal. TLA^tlak 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you are inheriting the reliability and reputation from the US Billboard, yeah? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They co-publish a chart and Billboard Argentina is a frequent writer for billboard.com. At the moment, my assumption is that it is reliable. TLA^tlak 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it calls an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul", a word usually reserved for the likes of Rupert Murdoch, I am thinking not so much. In any case, I think you should amend your source analysis table, lest people think RSMUSIC lists Billboard Argentina as a reliable source. When you take out the rumors, speculation, unattributed quotes and empty praises, there really isn't much there. One of the sources of that piece is "google search". The most it can give is: "Justin Jin is a media entrepreneur and youtuber who owns Poybo Media Group." — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for publications to use an eye-catching word in the headline. The definition of "Mogul" certainly vague, and the piece does actually verify a connection to a 500,000 monthly listener "secret music career" from the Poybo producer. TLA^tlak 14:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Excélsior article is a joke. There is no significant coverage about him on the article apart from the PR fluffery. The article only has praises and admiration about the subject, but not a single detail about his life or work in-depth. I am yet to check the other two sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I don't really like that source either, there is a section without praise, but it reads somewhat like an edited AI entry. Jeraxmoira, as you mentioned once that reputable publications need analysis and commentary, I suggest reading Daily Trust, and that secondary sources typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, I also suggest checking out The Source. Both are RS. TLA^tlak 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop sharing sources before analyzing them yourself. The article from Independent does not have significant coverage. Daily Trust and The Source are interviews. Do not selectively quote from my previous comment, I only said "Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists... - ... which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution)". I never implied that it counts towards GNG. At this point, I am only repeating what I have said all this while, so I'll not be responding here unless you have something policy backed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did analyze them. The Independent meets WP:100WORDS, an essay but what constitutes WP:SIGCOV itself is vague. I'm maybe going a bit far here, but I have seen in this AfD (I think I remember seeing another one but I can't find it nor do I want to hunt for it) you state the Hindu article contributes to GNG, while the Hindu article contains considerably more quoting than the two interview sources I mentioned as well as that canvassed (?) user.

Are you saying here that any interview = not contributing to GNG? There is very minimal direct quoting in many of these sources containing interviews. For now, I don't want to get involved further in this as we are practically going nowhere, and will be retaining my keep vote. TLA^tlak 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop selectively quoting my comments out of context, [9]. The paragraph on Independent has very little detail about him i.e., 'he is 17' and 'he leads Poybo'. This is nowhere near significant coverage. All the sources say the same. Does the source have anything new to add or is this a WP:BLP1E candidate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focusing on source assessment would be more helpful than arguing about applicable guidelines or speedy criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Analysing the sources. The first source here [10] was from the citation doubtful of the subject when this writing was made: A mysterious artist profile, 50mMidas, was discovered late last year while scrolling through Spotify's top song charts. The account, with an equally random Instagram page, has been rising through the ranks, becoming a competitive music artist on the platform with over 500,000 monthly listeners and another paragraph began; A Google search revealed that the artist likely belonged to Justin Jin, the teen CEO of the world's largest teen media company. Accessing the first citation was without doubt it was bias-written from related point of view.The second citation here [11] was written by a contributor and sounds promotional. For me, it may have been created from a related view since some wordings lacks editorial pass. The third source here [12] was written focusing on "one Muraty" with a/few mention of the article's subject "Jin". I won't say it is inclusively a source. The fourth source [13] was marked yellow by my citation highlighter meaning; the source is likely to be reliable. Looking into the article, it systematically wasn't news, it's a bit of few quotations of "Jin". The source was created perhaps by a contributor since there was no indication it was written by an author at Mashable. The [14], [15] and [16] for the article were cited for, Jin lives in Ambleside, West Vancouver. He goes to Mulgrave School. As of 2024, he hasn't attended college All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has a very PROMO feel to it. No coverage at all in Canadian sources, only a few conferences. Coverage in Argentina and in India [17], which seem to me to be undeclared paid promotional content. The IBT source is a non-RS, so this has PROMO-vibes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "PROMO-vibes" is not a strong assessment. the ib times source is not even used here. 6/9 of the sources here are green-label (reliable). She was ^afairy 02:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The colours don't necessarily represent consensus. Even if they did, there's always more to source analysis than whether it comes from one considered generally reliable. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence. TLA^tlak 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's most fit when citations are from reliable sources. Like @Usedtobecool said, its more to verifiability (considering the basis of the citation and at some cases: what it cites). It is not regarded to take for example a hoax that cites, "John Doe was born in Italy but grew up in Iowa. He is a socially influencing personality known for his diverse way of accepting fact of his company in Iowa also. His parents were the first CEO but handed it over to him because he was a good and god-fearing child. Even I, the editor love such narrative!". Looking at that above, it may have been written maybe by Mashable, NY times, Al Jazeera and many others. Are you saying it passes GNG when it came from a reliable source but fails verifiability, credibility and editorial..ity? All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment came across a sh*t storm. Leaning towards keep and improve. so this Kid Justin Jin at first glance appears to meet the the notability criteria for biographies on Wikipedia WP:BIO, particularly as an individual who has gained recognition in the media industry as a young entrepreneur and media executive. The issue I am having hard time believing that with the sources, is if we all couldn't find 2-3 reliable sources... Some of the sources do seem unquestionably strong. There are no required set amount of sources to establish notability.
  - The references provided suggest significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including international media outlets that discuss his international work and impact on youth-led media WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV The comparison to established media figures like Henry Luce and Rupert Murdoch indicates that Jin's activities have sparked attention beyond trivial mentions. However, the article would benefit from additional citations to address the [citation needed] tag and to strengthen the claims made, particularly with regard to Poybo Media's status as the world's biggest teenager-led media company. The [better source needed] tag also suggests that a more reliable source is required for the Business Insider claim. This kid looks like he is doing youth activism according to the sources, and while this article needs cleanup. I also saw users saying the WP:intertviews weren't valid, becauase: "thats an essay on wikipedia" well we hold essays to high standards. WP:Draftify is an Essay, yet if fail to follow the guidelines set out in that essay, you can lose perms for not following. I am going to do some scrolling. Before casting my vote. I am really confused as to why it seems like an us vs him thing. It gets to the point where others may make interpretations of WP policy based on their understanding of it.
  Comintell (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Justin Jin, being a media 'mogul', will obviously have a good enough PR team to set up interviews for him. Unless you have a very strong reason as to why WP:INTERVIEWS should be considered in this case and why Justin Jin should be treated as an exception from GNG, please don't waste your time bringing up the essay again. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Its only primary if its based on a vanilla/routine interview right? Which don't contribute to GNG (like a talkshow/whatnot??) WP:Interviews seemed appropriate towards the argument for the ones you brought up with @I'm tla, because they didn't seem to be the exact definition of a routine interview like this one from The Source, which appeared to be an article that featured original insight and analysis + quotes from the subject? Are you sure that references like that don't count towards GNG? What throws me off is the fact that they don't seem to be routine "interviews," which is what I thought didn't count. This entire AfD seems split divided.
  
  Even though i'm still not 100% convinced that the page should be deleted, I am going to just drop the stick considering there's a mixed bag of opinions in this discussion. I hope you see where I was coming from and why I brought up WP:Interviews. Hopefully my response is up to the high standards you've framed. Sorry if I upset you. I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Comintell (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Let me summarize. I am not going to be lenient in this particular case just because he gave interviews to several news media outlets. Despite being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company and working in the media/entertainment industry, the absence of independent coverage is a huge red flag. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I guess I'm going to continue my involvement here. I don't know about you, but being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company rings a bell at WP:ENT#2. It might also be worth mentioning that while the number of subscribers certainly cannot determine notability, it can only help at WP:ENT. The independent coverage I presented above satisfies me, but it appears I missed Dana Mathews' (GQ's Entertainment Director) profile of Jin here from being on the cover of the GQ's Power Issue.
  
  WP:BLP1E really does not apply here. Founding a company is not an event, and I don't see how starting a (presumably) high-profile one would make a person remain a low-profile individual. Citing an essay again *sigh* WP:BLP1ENOT. TLA^tlak 09:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is the second time you've brought up WP:ENT in the discussion. Have you even checked the first line of WP:ENT before assessing the subject for criteria #1 and #2? You mentioned he was a comedian previously, but none of the sources I've seen so far have indicated that. Can you please stop introducing SNG criterias you're not familiar with as it is prolonging this AfD thread unnecessarily. And the GQ article you mentioned was posted, archived on the Wayback Machine and deleted on the same date (March 15, 2024). Another red flag? How you came across the archived version is a question for another day. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, I think I am familiar enough with WP:ENT. See WP:YTN, and I would, again, say that memes = comedy.
  
  The GQ piece is in the article itself. I'm tla (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, but I am done. I don't think you have enough competence to understand what the other editors and I are trying to convey. You first cite WP:INTERVIEWS and then once it failed, you dug up WP:ENT. It was clearly explained and is also well known to anyone who is part of this AfD that the subject is not known/notable for his meme(comedy?) videos and to add on, the channel has been inactive from 13 June 2023. Now, you have stumbled upon another essay, WP:YTN, which also mentions that only 7% of articles have been kept of subjects with < 100k subs, but you seem to ignoring it. You can keep digging up more and more essays, but justin jin does not pass WP:GNG and the rest of SNGs do not apply to him. The GQ piece is very suspicious as I have already mentioned that it was created, archived and deleted in a single day and now you have the archived version with no trace of it anywhere else. Below, you have mentioned 4 statements that clearly belongs in the Poybo article if and when it is created. There is a reason why the article about Alakh Pandey, the founder of Physics Wallah, was and is still being redirected or merged to the company's article whenever someone tries to recreate it. I am not saying the same outcome should be given here as every AfD needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not by previous consensus on other topics or AfDs. When there are only/mostly interviews by Justin as sources right now, it makes it really hard to verify all the claims made by them as obviously the next interviewer is going to do their due diligence from the previously written sources to add their own secondary analysis and comments in between their interview, which ultimately violates the WP:OR (WP:PSTS section) policy. From what I have seen till now, none of the sources are detailed enough, they are largely just puff pieces. Note to closing admin: The above statement should be considered with my previously casted delete vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Failed? I still partly stand by WP:INTERVIEW and a couple other people seem to have also noted that. Although, thank you for letting me understand that essays can be quite weak in AfDs. That canvassed (?) user noted that 10-15% of the Source and Daily Trust articles are quotes, and using a word counter that is true, so it is far from primary. You noted that the interviewer is obviously involved, involved in what? Interviewing? Obviously. The policy states only those close to an event are not primary, and the examples given at WP:PRIMARYNEWS are very different.
  
  That above makes this subject pass WP:GNG, and I located WP:ENT because that is also passed. My point is that the entire company is based on memes and comedy, both based on the social media accounts I could locate and the press coverage. The company has 7 million followers according to El Caribe. Note that the El Caribe article has an interview, but the conclusion is entirely secondary. Finally, you seem to agree that the GQ piece is strong, but you're saying that it is very suspicious when it is still indexed online. I believe our discussion has been robust and productive, though I don't want us to be screaming in each other's faces so I hope we can agree that the baseline here is a draftify, until good more sourcing is discovered. TLA^tlak 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  GQ website says The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, "cached" or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Good luck with using the GQ article that you think, "I seem to agree that it is a strong piece", Btw nice interpretation of my comments. Entire company is based on memes and comedy and The company has 7 million followers, please proceed to create an article for the company and stop wasting your time here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I wonder how that adds to WP:ENT. @I'm tla, your argument on the sources seems not worthy and biased. You jumped from accessing the sources to ENT. If the company is verbally the largest, give me three worthwhile sources (not interview or reporting what the founder had said) that analysed the bigness../or how its was the largest and I will withdraw! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, that's the point of a discussion.
  
  Billboard: 1. world's largest teen media company.
  
  2. Independent: the startup has been endorsed by several media enthusiasts as a necessary innovation needed to accelerate youth media in Africa.
  
  2. AMG’s Poybo Africa among the largest youth media companies in Africa, according to Business Insider’s analysis
  
  4. GQ: a money-making enterprise often deemed the largest of its kind. I'm tla (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am not satisfied with that. For independent news, that should be totally not considered. I know how the media works in Nigeria and this article lacks coverage. Seems to be paid additions to news. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It is very unclear what you mean by For independent news, that should be totally not considered. By the way, the one source out of the four I cited above that is Nigerian is the Independent. I've given you sources that verify it is indeed the largest. TLA^tlak 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep… coming as a bulgarian reader who has known 50mMidas (Justin Jin) from YT. No one asked me to come here, I don’t usually care about such situations but something is fixing up. I have seen young dudes whatnot getting sent to Articles for deletion and then seeing a wave of people voting a delete. Maybe when we are all younger in high school we’ve done something cool, been a smart student, maybe got interviewed in the local paper. But there is a difference between that and the teen who starts a business and gets multiple interviews in reliable news sources about it. Starting a business young won't make anyone notable, even making a ton of money or getting a bunch of subs like this guy won't win anyone notability. But having reliable sources write about your business does start to get you genuine notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.68.88 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its good you came as you said. Well, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:INTERVIEWS and see all about them. You argument should be a young teen starting a business is not considered notability because he/she may not be noticeable. But when that teen has appeared on multiple interviews, it shows he/she is notable because it's difficult teens being interviewed. I don't know but that's my interpretation . The article has WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but they are blatantly seeming paid works even. Looking at them, there isn't a coverage, rather ones that do come a time and the other next five days. The argument is that the subject is not notable per WP: ENT and meets no SNG for Wikipedia. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete… Written in a promotional style. Deb (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s eligible if we go with WP:NPOV @Deb ? DIV IN E 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you didn't write it from a neutral point of view? Deb (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am just curious and asking as you’ve mentioned promotional style. While that falls under [WP:ADV]] #CSD and there was question mark ❓ DIV IN E 06:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotional article with questionable sources, and the past promotional edits around all of this push me towards delete. Ravensfire (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Maker here. The Justin is notable. Meets GNG due to source assessment way above that I agree. Even if some are interviews that is okay because they have a lot of evaluation. Language of source does not affect reliability according to GNG policy. Also meets #2. of WP : ENT because of starting the biggest teenager media company in the world. Articles for deletion is not for cleanup so if article is written promotionally I’m sorry my English is not the best but that can be fixed with editing. I see new sources are coming out like recent GQ article added and being published continually. Deondernemers (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does not meet WP:ENT to even assess the #1 and #2 criteria listed on it. The GQ source is useless unless you have written permission from Condé Nast allowing the use of the cached version. He did not create or contribute anything unique, prolific, or innovative as the short videos, reels, relatable content and memes already existed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 25 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. Page is now SALTed. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlabs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another (3rd) recreation of previously deleted article for non-notable IT consultancy. Previous AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marlabs_(2nd_nomination) 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt This company does not have any WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing is limited to interviews and press releases. I was unable to find anything other than press releases/churnalism by websites such as "PR Newswire." Please note the Forbes article is by the CEO so it does not count as secondary coverage. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt both Marlabs and Marlabs LLC : A new instance on a previously deleted topic, supported by a summary and announcement-based coverage of routine company history, falling under WP: ORGTRIV. I see no reason to set aside the previous AfD decisions. Given this 3rd AfD, plus previous G11 deletions, if this current instance is deleted, it also seems appropriate to salt the variant names. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a completely different from previous versions which are so old. Now it is backed with multiple reliable secondary sources, passes GNG. Graze Wood (talk) 13:35, 26 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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. R. L. Thangavel[edit]

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

Candidate for the upcoming election in India, fails WP:NPOL. No other apparent claim to notability. There has been a general consensus that Wikipedia is not a publicity forum for election candidates. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The only coverage I could find of him online in English or Tamil (கே.ஆர்.எல்.தங்கவேல்} was passing mentions of him in routine coverage of candidates, and not even an interview with him about his candidacy. Wikishovel (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Karthick (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Delete Karthick (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

@Iamakarthick we are all only allowed one vote. She was ^afairy 02:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of his positions nor his candidacy hold notability, and nothing substantial for sources was found on my search. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 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. A veritable army of likely canvassed/paid/SPA/COI/socks has been mobilized to show up here and add their !vote, all on the Delete side. But rather than engage in speculation about who is a legitimate, unbiased participant in good standing and who isn't, most of these Delete views can be discarded based on their lack of reliance on P&G. This leaves us with a clear consensus to keep the article. For the avoidance of doubt: claims about libel or defamation should be emailed to info-en-q@wikipedia.org. We will not engage in discussing legal accusations across Wikipedia pages. Owen× ☎ 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BNN Breaking[edit]

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

Thoroughly checked the page and saw a lot of editing dispute. I guess this article does not meet the Notability criteria. The lead section does not have any citation. Few references are used many times. The article gives me impression that it is not written in neutral language.HxxxM07 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. HxxxM07 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say it passes WP:GNG: there is significant coverage in multiple indepedent sources, including Business Insider, multiple local newspapers, and an Irish national newspaper (though perhaps none of them have consensus as reliable sources--BI doesn't have a consensus (WP:BI) and none of the others are major news outlets). The lead section not having citations is fine, as the points are cited in the article body (as per MOS:LEAD). I would not advocate deletion on an article for not meeting WP:NPOV, as the article could be improved to address this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites, Hong Kong, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion atm, but condense and merge to Gurbaksh Chahal is an option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete If this article and company is notable no page on the platform should be deleted. I just saw the article's history and its already messed up. As per my experience here the company is not having a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just same articles taking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff and the whole article is rather opinion than an encyclopedia material. I will still try to find and add if any reliable source with indepth coverage about the compnay exists. NatalieTT (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC) — NatalieTT (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please note that this could potentially be a case of a bad-faith nomination, as the founder of BNN Breaking has a long history of hiring freelancers to whitewash their pages. Upon examining the history of this article, there seem to be some attempts to remove the controversial part. Please mail me or paid-en queue for more details. GSS ^💬 18:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would vote Keep, except I guess I should recuse myself since I (along with @Lepricavark) was mentioned by name on a BNN Breaking article critical of Wikipedia:[18]. I think we should keep the article for the benefit of people who want to determine whether a news site is bogus or not. Chisme (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like GSS, I have my doubts about the good-faith of this nomination in light of Chahal's extensive history of chicanery. If he doesn't like the way that his organization is covered in this article, maybe he should clean up his clearly dirty organization. Unfortunately for him, being crooked is not a safeguard against being notable. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lepricavark: I have a feeling that this AfD is going to attract some suspicious delete voters, similar to user NatalieTT, who was inactive for over 3 months and suddenly became active to !vote here. GSS ^💬 05:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be par for the course given prior abuses at the Chahal article. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chisme, did you check the tags at the end of the article text? They're quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it @Gråbergs Gråa Sång written; Drmies, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, David Gerard, Ravensfire, and DanielMichaelPerry. It's quite funny though! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's just enough sources, which span a period of several years, that the article warrants keeping. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: bnn breaking is a horrible news source. that doesn't mean they are not notable, there is sufficient coverage. She was ^afairy 02:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I avoid contributing to such situations but here something is cooking. I reported a lot of socks and people silently who try to prepare a case against a specific topic or shed personal agendas rather than based on the policy. I believe a lot of paid editing is involved here and the article may have been created to secure a place on Wikipedia to get more hype. I will send the evidence to concerned authorities as well. I can see that only San Francisco Chronicle and related sub sites which are not even in the list of reliable sources listed have interest in this non-notable company that is not even a news site but a personal blog with pathetic publicity stunt type of news coverage used as click baits. I'm on a clear side on Delete but I will keep an eye out and see if someone shows more coverage instead of bombarding it with keeps.The Informer Sally (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC) — The Informer Sally (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

delete It really seems that this article is meant to defame and slander a particular person. After properly going the edit history I found that it seems the whole intention of this article to ensure bad name directed towards 1 person. I hereby change the vote to deletion, as soon as possible. 12:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)~ Bonadart (talk) — Bonadart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete/Comment I was searching for something on Google and landed here in search of information. I edited and even created pages in the past but then left because even after spending months to create pages they were removed for being 'non-notable' and after reading the article in question and reading the points here I felt I should leave my analysis as well. There's not a single news article on Google news section that discusses the subject in detail check here [19]. It doesn't meet WP:GNG even. G19US (talk) 11:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — G19US (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is not a very well-formed nomination for deletion (a lead doesn't need citations...), and the multiple accounts that just show up here, arguing that it's somehow defamation, that's more than a little odd. Plus, there is sourcing, of course, even though much of it is negative. Is it enough to keep? Should it be merged into the owner's bio? I don't really know, or care, but it's pretty clear that there are outside interests here with these articles, as this also shows. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thoroughly checked the sources, and I don't see any in-depth coverage about the subject. The cited sources are emphasizing the event in particular rather than subject itself, and if exclude those sources there left nothing. Also, other than San Francisco Chronicle, Business Insider, the cited sources are not that much reliable.Atighot (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC) — Atighot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, multiple sources over multiple years describe this website. Also want closer to note the wave of 'delete' votes from accounts that have made little edits outside this topic, considering the founder's history of recruiting paid editors. wizzito | say hello! 00:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article needs to be around to keep receipts on the Internet to inform the populace on what BNN Breaking is doing. It is notable and has been covered by multiple RS. The wave of "delete" comments also seems suspicious given BNN Breaking's own attempts itself to whitewash this article. Having failed that, I believe their new tactic is to get the article about BNN Breaking deleted. You can read about their attempts here on their site, with an article bashing Wikipedia: BNN Breaking EXCLUSIVE: The Dark Side of Wikipedia - The Billion-Dollar Web of Deception, Lies & Elite Manipulation. Merge with the founder's article is no good. This needs to have its own article to inform and educate the public. -Object404 (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dropping my two cents here, this page seems to have been created to defame the entity. The editing done on this page seems to be targeted to tarnish the image of the company and to destabilize the article itself. As per my experience here, the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source, just the same articles talking about the same thing and routine blogs not even written by the source's staff, and the whole article is rather an opinion than encyclopedia material. I have not encountered any Wikipedia article about a media company—or any company, for that matter—framed in such a manner that it meets inclusion criteria. Additionally, a preliminary search revealed a lack of visibility on Google, casting further doubt on the subject's notability as defined by Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee nn yy (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ee nn yy (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

"the company does not have a single in-depth coverage in any reliable source" -> This is a lie. The subject is covered in-depth by The San Francisco Standard.

-Object404 (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I nominated this article for deletion only because it lacks significant coverage in my opinion. Many statements are backed by websites that cannot be considered as trustable. I highly suggest the cleanup of this article to maintain Wikipedia standard if it is kept. Vital information should not backed by blog article, instead please use trustable sources if there is any. M66JX (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking us to believe that after nearly a month of inactivity which was preceded by a warning that you appeared to be making undisclosed paid contributions, upon your return you coincidentally just happened to stumble across this article and nominate it for deletion. And the fact that this article is about a company founded by a man with an extensive history of using undisclosed paid editors on his own biography is yet another coincidence because you totally weren't paid for this nomination. I don't believe you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Existing sources show enough coverage of BNN to meet WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like Chisme, I had intended to recuse myself from this AfD. However, since those affiliated with the subject have shown no compunctions against pursuing their conflict of interest via poorly-disguised paid !votes, I will formally register my !vote in favor of keeping the article. The sources are sufficient to satisfy GNG whether Gurbaksh Chahal likes it or not. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Strongly agreed with Object404. Also, all delete votes seem so suspicious and funny to see all of the voters just awaken from hyper inactivity all of a sudden and come to Wikipedia to vote on deleting an article. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article does note meet WP:NORG.i think this article shoun't be on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcruexz (talk • contribs) 14:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whereas, the Wikipedia article, bnn breaking exhibits a tone that suggests a close relationship between the writer/editor and the subject matter. The article also fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, lacking sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish the subject's significance, as single references is used multiple times. Therefore, BNN Breaking violates Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality and notability.Palucy (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Palucy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Subject fails the notability guideline for companies and cealrly looks like promotional article or paid article.Thatbombayboy (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Thatbombayboy (talk) •[reply]
Delete this artical looks like act of defamation under Libel and the nature of the edits gives the impression that editor have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but editor have not complied with [mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements.]Kingaayaan (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) Kingaayaan (talk) •[reply]
Oh, the irony. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 17:04, 27 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 23:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keenan Prochnow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has not won a medal at any international competition, nor has he won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON - the relevant rules are a strong consensus. Having placed in the top 6, but not the top 3, junior teams, he is not automatically notable. I don't see enough coverage, but if I missed something, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 25 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. ^Complex/_Rational 19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freshwater Christian College[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE for this school article, and updated one reference and added another; but am not seeing enough reliable, independent and significant coverage for the school to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Tacyarg (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Australia. Tacyarg (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look at this, I agree that this article is not notable, so Delete. Bduke (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it gets some very local coverage in the Cairns Post, but nothing to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not have enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Bradelykooper (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what in the United States would be called a private school, parochial school, or independent school; it is not what we call a "college." So WP:NSCHOOL and relevant, longstanding rules and essays apply. I don't see any evidence of when this was founded, nor in any secondary sources, or more broadly significant coverage. There is no evidence that this school has more than 500 students, or that it's over 100 years old, or grants an International Baccalaureate, or has 2 or more notable alumni, or has 1 or more notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports. Thus this also fails my own standards for schools. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 26 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals[edit]

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

Primarily, this page was created by an editor who has been banned for engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Subsequently, it has been modified by a group of editors who have recently created and edited an article related to the subject, attempting to exert influence on this page and also at Solar power in India, where they were actually discovered. Conflicts of interest and undisclosed paid editing are prevalent issues across all these pages. Charlie (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies and India. Charlie (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Conflict-of-interest editing isn't grounds for deleting the article itself, but for rewriting/rewording it. Deletion discussion should focus on whether it's notable per WP:NBOOK. Crystalholm (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably enough book reviews to keep it. I also find [20] and [21]. Indian Express review, which is a RS [22]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and Keep as per the reasoning presented by Oaktree and others. COI and UPE can be addressed in alternative forums. Charlie (talk) 04:53, 21 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 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Murch[edit]

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

I don't believe this footballer meets GNG. He is mentioned in a number of news articles, like this one, but they are either local/routine coverage or interviews. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage.

He has played a fair number of games in his career but most were at semi-pro level. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Scotland. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I just found mentions of him in an archive search. Dougal18 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG—only appeared at rather low levels of semi-pro football with no distinguishing characteristics to supersede that fact. Anwegmann (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 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 withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 04:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Govind Dholakia[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's Notability of Politicians guideline (WP:NPOL). Nominated to the Rajya Sabha but not elected, and has not yet taken on the role. Remaining content is promotional in nature (WP:NEWSORGINDIA), including his autobiography. Charlie (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Charlie (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Gujarat. Skynxnex (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Members-elect to an WP:NPOL-passing office pass NPOL. This source confirms he was elected. Curbon7 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we can make MP-elect articles per NPOL clause. Read this, Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a member-elect of the Rajya Sabha, so obviously meets WP:NPOL #1. The article needs improvement and cleaning up, not deletion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and Keep Passes WP:NPOL criterion 1 for the member-elect. Also, the reference from The Hindu, shared by Curbon7 and added by me, satisfies the requirements of WP:THREE; which also dispelled my uncertainty regarding his appointment through election, as I had previously assumed it was merely a nomination. Charlie (talk) 03:15, 21 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weinstein effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is full of good content that should be on Wikipedia. However, a lot of the content in this article feels like it would make more sense as part of articles on #MeToo, and would improve those articles and provide context. I feel this article doesn't really have a reason to stand on it's own, especially since the "Weinstein effect" isn't really a well defined term even in this article and has had limited usage. Hence, I think it may make more sense to merge this with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeToo_movement. (This is my second AfD nomination, I hope I'm doing this right). Update: I took a look at the previous AfD discussion, with over seven years since the last nomination, it seems that time has made this a case of WP: NEO. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Film, and Sexuality and gender. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna be bold here: Snow close. The articles in question, Weinstein effect and MeToo movement should be edited appropriately, nothing to delete here. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using AfD to propose a merge and redirect like this isn't particularly abnormal (the merge proposal process, which would be the alternative, is seen as largely broken). The nominator made an argument that can be considered under WP:PAGEDECIDE, so I don't see a need for a snow close. Sdkb ^talk 20:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't disagree on your view. There obviously are alternative ways of dealing with a problem like the issue at hand, I for one would rather get in touch with significant contributors and seek an opinion. However, if it's the D in AfD that's the case here, and concerning the D I do see a close (okay maybe not necessarily a snow but it felt like a snow moment at first instinct) because there's other things to consider here. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if not snowball, the article is about an event that is still remembered to this day by regular people and has tons of reliable sources on it. Jeanette the Porn Chat Star Martin (aqui) 05:53, 21 March, 2024 (UTC)
Speedy keep I agree with the comments of User:JeanetteMartin above, and with the result of the first afd. While some some cleanup of the article may be in order, I can see no compelling reason for deletion or merging. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD was no closed with no prejudice against a merger. And "no compelling reason" isn't a rebuttal to the argument that the OP made. That argument is about scope, so to refute it you need to show that the two pages have sufficiently different scopes that it makes sense to present them separately. As a closer, I would discount the tons of reliable sources comments, which would speak to a notability challenge not being made here. For the folks in the back: Notability is not the only reason that a page can be unsuitable. I'm disappointed with the quality of the discussion so far. Sdkb ^talk 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to second the argument here, this isn't a notability discussion, this is about whether the information in the article overlaps with already written content on Wikipedia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well-referenced article for a concept that continues to have impact. Toughpigs (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes it a Weinstein Effect as "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," then proceeds to list only one example (the #MeToo movement), it should either be completely reworked to talk about other examples that do not follow from or are adjacent to #MeToo, or it should be merged with the article about the #MeToo if it is just another name for the movement. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The term is covered in USA Today, CBS News and others. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in the context of the #MeToo movement, not really outside of it. This article frankly needs to be more clear on what it is. Is it "fallout of the Harvey Weinstein scandal"? Or is it "the social repercussions of movements that expose powerful people (only in cases of sexual harassment? not cases of sexual harassment?)"? Or is it just "a part of the #MeToo movement"? Frankly, some of these provide cases for keeping the article, which is fine, but in that case, we better make it very clear what the article is about. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That comment makes for a very confusing rationale for deletion. It seems like you're arguing for a merge with MeToo movement (or possibly several related pages, per your original statement), but you've also suggested that you're not sure whether it entirely overlaps with MeToo.

I would suggest that an Articles for Deletion discussion is not the best format to make this determination. This is a problem that can only be solved by careful analysis and thoughtful editing, and you are apparently the person who's most invested in figuring it out. AfD participants are going to treat this like an AfD nomination. You're posing a more complex question, which is probably best explored as a bold merge attempt. Toughpigs (talk) 04:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the reason I made the request is because I felt that deleting the article (and transferring some of its content) would be the cleanest solution, (and my preferred solution). I'm not good at merge attempts, but if you think that would be a better approach, feel free to make one! I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Allan Nonymous I don't want to criticise You here, after all we're all learning as we go, but bringing the article to the deletion pages seems like you needed a forum for comment on what to do with the articles. There should be another way to seek comments on articles on WP, but I don't know if there is one. Maybe contacting relevant wikiprojects or significant contributors? @Toughpigs my thoughts exactly. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into the #MeToo article and Harvey Weinstein BLP. As Allan Nonymous said, the first line of the article title, that the Weinstein Effect is "a global trend in which allegations of sexual misconduct by famous or powerful figures are disclosed," isn't well supported. Describing it as a global trend known by that name that persists into the present doesn't seem accurate. #MeToo captures it better.--FeralOink (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more so as of today than ever. Since this was nominated, this has been in the news overnight in connection with P. Diddy's absconding from the Federal (United States) authorities. It's as if it's an ongoing event with a long legacy. Oh wait .... See WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 26 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 14:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Broadgreen[edit]

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

Another closed-circuit hospital radio station which does not meet WP:BASIC. Article completely unsourced and research does not reveal much (if any) coverage, other than a single event in 2016 which attracted some offbeat news coverage [23]. Flip Format (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately there are many, many hundreds of completely unsourced, non-notable radio station articles (of which this is one) on Wikipedia due to previous policy effectively suggesting all radio stations were inherently notable. While it is a shame to see people's work be deleted, without sources we have no credibility, we effectively become a social media site. It's extraordinary how many of these articles have existed for 10-20 years with literally no sources. I also note that the page was specifically created to "advertise the station as much as possible" AusLondonder (talk) 17:58, 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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus since no clear consensus established after a month of discussion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talafi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2012. Minor awards DonaldD23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television programmes broadcast by PTV#Dramas, where it is listed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I am okay with a redirect as stated above. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:21, 28 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) 12:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referencing is a bit low but still can be kept as stub as Pakistani dramas from that time has similar referencing from primary sources mostly. Showbiz news websites were very few back then, even very few newspapers maintained efficiently online presence. Muneebll (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:42, 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 keep‎. I hope these sources can find their way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nguyen Van Hung[edit]

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

Possible cross-wiki spam, noticed some 15 years ago already. I don't see notability; he is an activist but without major achievements. Nadzik (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Taiwan and Vietnam. Nadzik (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Japan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google translate isn't giving me any help on the Chinese sources but the State Department and Taipei Times both look like significant coverage in reliable sources.— Moriwen (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete - see also Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Nipponese_Dog_Calvero. Hoyanova (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI ar:special:diff/66394263; requests to create the article on the Arabic Wikipedia. (Please see GUC) --Alaa :)..! 15:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There is good sourcing, including the ones Moriwen raised, so this is fine. Notability should be determined apart from LTA case / UPE or whatever. TLA^tlak 02:13, 20 March 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) 14:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Mentioned in a few articles [24], [25], with probably the best here [26], as human rights activist. I think we have just enough basic coverage about the person. A mention here [27] Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as the Taipei Times, The Diplomat and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 24 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 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Berks[edit]

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

Article cites no sources; sources difficult/impossible to find, clearly not notable Personhumanperson (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Personhumanperson (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find a single source online about this, from the BBC, on archive.org, or otherwise, which is odd as the main significance of it seems to be that it was the first BBC Digital Commission. I wonder if this article is pure fabrication, or if information about the show has just been lost to time (or if anyone can dig up a source on it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quuxbazbarfoo (talk • contribs) 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great piece of creative writing. Zero available evidence this series even existed; all indicators point towards the article creator and main contributing editor being on some sort of hoax. (for reference - see the first ever edit by the creator of this article [28]; the plot itself appears - erm - far fetched unless as a surreal comedy - NOTHERE may well apply). ResonantDis_tortion 23:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we've got a new one for the WP:HOAXLIST for sure, so 'congratulations' to Dickpiggot (talk · contribs) for getting this just short of the eighteen-year mark AND somehow not getting immediately blocked. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Congratulations to Personhumanperson on spotting this. It's actually incredible how many articles have been around 10-20 years with zero sources, particularly in the radio topic area. There's a lot of cleaning up to do to. Congratulations also to the creator for managing to create a hoax unnoticed for going on two decades. AusLondonder (talk) 04:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What amazes me so much is that, looking at the page history, it was visited and touched by so many experienced users, and yet none of them caught on. Serious props to the guy, who created a hoax so believable that even well-known users missed it. Personhumanperson (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All editors really need to be much more alert and active regarding wholly unsourced articles. It's damaging to our credibility as an encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing Online. Wow, a Hoax! 🍪 CookieMonster 04:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: if the series had been broadcast on BBC Radio 4 or BBC 7 (now BBC Radio 4 Extra) it would have an entry in the BBC Genome Project, and it doesn't. :Flip Format (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources and poorly written. It doesn't even mention dates as to when it was ran, even if it is real. But this whole thing could be hoax. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonder if creator's name is a reference to Richard Pigott, an Irish journalist known for creating a forgery... AusLondonder (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this qualify for G3?🍪 CookieMonster 11:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikidata item doesn't contain anything meaningful too. Killarnee (talk) 19:22, 24 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 13:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raagini Sutradhar[edit]

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

Not yet notable WP:NACTOR, only minor roles so far. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, just routine syndicated movie promotion, and a few brief articles about her wedding to a director. This Times of India article cited says she was cast in Lage Prema Nazar in 2021, but I can't find a reliable source to verify that she appeared in the released film. Unsourced claims about her early life (now removed) and improperly sourced promotional photo suggest undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, Odisha, and West Bengal. Wikishovel (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The actress is not regarded well-known who has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work that has been the primary subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:NACTOR, even WP:BASIC. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Tehonk (talk) 18:01, 24 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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3:16 game[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 Game

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

A similarly named page (different capitalization) was already deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3:16 Game. This article largely duplicates what is already at Tim Tebow. The section 3:16 game § Background is covered at Tim Tebow § "The Tebow Rule" , and 3:16 game § Statistical coincidences is at the game's coverage at Tim Tebow § 2011 season.

The notability guideline WP:NSPORTSEVENT reads:

Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

WP:NOTABILITY states:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

The 3:16 references are more relevant to Tim Tebow than the game, and its details from the game are already covered in his bio, which has the relevant background of his college references to 3:16. For the NFL game itself, other pages this topic overlaps with, aside from Tebow's bio, are 2011–12 NFL playoffs, 2011 Denver Broncos season, and 2011 Pittsburgh Steelers season. —Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This game can be covered at the Tebow article and in the two team-season articles. Cbl62 (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. This article is honestly mostly just trivia. If it wasn't for Tebow being a big religious guy this is just something that would be written about once a decade that makes people go "... huh. Neat." Hey man im josh (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4. Delete per nom. No actual notability other than this weird coincidence.🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted, per what I said in the edit summary: "G4 says 'sufficiently identical copies', doubtful since there's [a source] from 2017 here and the afd was 9!! years ago. also, article got a green tick for dyk and is on-hold at GAN." It's better to let the AfD run its course. Skyshiftertalk 13:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, changing my response to reflect that. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure trivia, no lasting impact; anything relevant can be inserted into parent articles. Also fails WP:LASTING; all, save a couple, of the sources provided are from 2012, and if we customize our search of newsoutlets to establish when it was last discussed: it hasn't been, since 2020 at least. And they're not even mentions, let alone in-depth discussion. ——Serial Number 54129 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Not notable for standalone inclusion. Some content can be merged into parent articles as explained above (though I oppose any redirect of this title). I agree that G4 speedy does not apply. Frank Anchor 15:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the sources added by Beaniefan, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep when reliable sources cover the topic in depth it is a keep. Washington post: "Tim Tebow: Credit John 3:16, John Elway and John Fox" CBS "John 3:16: Tebow stat line evokes biblical verse" Los Angeles Times "John 3:16 message delivered by Tim Tebow's arm" The Denver Post "Focus on the Family unveils John 3:16 ad during Broncos game" Time Magazine "Tim Tebow's 316 Passing Yards Evokes Biblical Number". In addition there is WP:LASTING coverage. Lightburst (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Bible, and Christianity. Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Frequently covered in Books. Magazines. Newspapers. Over extended period of time. Additional sources not yet in article:

Yorkey, Mike (2012). Tim Tebow: Playing with Purpose. Barbour Publisher. p. 61.
Gordon, Stephen G. (2013). Tim Tebow: Quarterback with Conviction. Twenty-First Century Books. p. 64.
Sutera, David M. (2013). Sports fans 2.0: how fans are using social media to get closer to the game. Scarecrow Press. p. 30.
Mackay, Jenny (2013). Tim Tebow. Lucent Books. p. 40.
Patterson, James (2018). All-American murder: the rise and fall of Aaron Hernandez. Little, Brown and Company. p. 116.

There are more sources, but I don't want to flood the page. The point is, lots of sourcing, and this is how we determine notability. The nom is correct there is some existing coverage elsewhere on WP. That's how it should work, limited coverage in other articles, all pointing to this the main article that has the most depth of detail, that doesn't require the reader to navigate around to piece information together. -- GreenC 19:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're either being intentionally dishonest or simply careless. The first of these sources I happened to check (the third one, sports fans 2.0, p30) makes absolutely no mention of this game. This is entirely about Rollen Stewart (that guy who dressed up in a clown wig with John 3:16 signs at games). I stopped looking after that due to a loss of trust. Is there any particular reason we should take any of your other sources seriously? Do any of them discuss the game in depth? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just on a hunch, I checked the other sources. Not a SINGLE ONE of these mentions the topic of the article. I strongly suggest you strike your comment as egregiously misleading. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not checked the others properly but on the last one, p.116 mentions the eye black and the start of the following chapter is where the January 8, 2012, game is covered. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A meaningless statistical coincidence, not a significant or notable game. Since Tebow made a deal about it, it can be mentioned/merged in his own article where there's already a relevant section that includes the background – it's his own broader evokation of 3:16 that has received the coverage. The sources above repeat the same statistics but have a greater focus on Tebow's use of 3:16 in general and do not warrant a standalone article as if this game itself were notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time. Skyshiftertalk 19:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the focus on these sources is more about Tebow's use of 3:16 than this game specifically, and per WP:NOPAGE this can be covered better in the main article. The article has irrelevant details like Roethlisberger's interception, and Hernandez's use of it would be related to Tebow's legacy not that of this game. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are working through the Talk:3:16 game/GA1. I believe it will look and feel more encyclopedic as the review gets satisfied. It seems to be something that is widely noted in the press.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Who scored what points and who won the coin toss are totally irrelevant to any of the coverage here. Even more ridiculous that you're doing your own OR and finding more arbitrary coincidences. Nothing about the game itself – which is covered at 2011–12_NFL_playoffs#AFC:_Denver_Broncos_29,_Pittsburgh_Steelers_23_(OT) – is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. There was some attention for the statistical coincidence, but all of the background, significance, legacy is relevant to Tebow himself and his extended use of 3:16, not the game in particular. A topic for "Tim Tebow and 3:16" or "The Tebow Rule" makes more sense to expand on it as whole than to have a page like this, but stripping the impertinent details and duplication leaves just enough to merge. Reywas92^Talk 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling. Core reason for deletion ("it's covered elsewhere") is relatively weak in the first place: that's a great reason for an editorial discussion on the talk page, not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...not so much a compelling argument that a DEL#REASON is unequivocally met: Incorrect. WP:DEL-REASON No. 5 reads:
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
The Wikipedia:Content forks guideline advises (emphasis added)
A content fork is a piece of content (such as an inter-wiki object, a page, or a page section) that has the same scope as another piece of content that predated it, essentially covering the same topic.
This is a fork of the aforementioned sections already at Tim Tebow. —Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how WP:PROPERSPLIT is failed by this article? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROPERSPLIT in an informational how-to page. It is not a guideline. An actual guideline is WP:AVOIDSPLIT:
In this case, editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first, locating coverage that applies to both the main topic and the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability, and thus can be split off into their own article
...
It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article.
WP:NSPORTSEVENT says similar:
For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted.
90+% of the context is already at Tebow's bio. Anything usesful, aside from the WP:NOTDIARY content, can be merged.—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has any of the "Keep" voters addressed WP:NOTABILITY? Because this page is mostly just trivia and a weird coincidence, not actually something that's very notable. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment "The game received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources over an extended period of time" is a reference to WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 11:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources noted by Lightburst and GreenC are sufficiently compelling." Did you even look at GreenC's? Not a single one of them even mentions the article topic in passing, let alone in depth! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, actually. I did go back and look at GreenC's in depth and your critiques are fair. Lightburst's seem fine, unless I'm missing something there? Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable because (per the general notability guideline) "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The notability discussion also says, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity ..." Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 13:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some lasting coverage of the game I located:
- Greatest Broncos games of the 2010s: Steelers at Broncos, 1/8/2012 (2020) – SB Nation
- Three years later, Demaryius Thomas looks back at Tim Tebow TD vs. Steelers (2015) – The Denver Post ("Jan. 8, 2012. It’s a date that Broncos fans will never forget.")
- 8 Years Ago: Tim Tebow Delivers Some Mile High Magic In Final Home Broncos Game (2020) – CBS News
- 10 years ago on January 8, 2012: Broncos' Tim Tebow to Demaryius Thomas in OT (2022) – USA Today
- 2012 playoff loss in Denver is ancient history to Steelers (2016) – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
- The Tim Tebow-to-Thomas Touchdown, in the words of Demaryius Thomas (2014) – The Gazette
BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11's and Lightburst's sources, there is plenty of lasting coverage to meet GNG. And there was more to the game than what would be appropriate to cover in the Tim Tebow article. And there was more to the game than simply the 3:16 coincidences. For example, as mentioned in at least one of BeanieFan11's sources (but not I believe in the article as it stands now), it was the first overtime playoff game played under the new rules under which the game would not end in sudden death on a field goal on the first possession. Rlendog (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources given in the article and in this discussion show enduring notability of the game. — Bilorv (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appears to be enough sources and content on this game to warrant a stand-alone article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Lightburst and BeanieFan11 that show a pass of WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by BeanieFan11. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:11, 26 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. I believe the nomination has been withdrawn and consensus is to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gukjeong chumyo[edit]

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

Cannot identify any sources on Google Scholar, Google News, and Google Books. General search also brings up nothing that can establish notability. There may be information that can establish notability in Korean. If notability can't be established then content could be merged with Byeon Sang-byeok Traumnovelle (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Animal, Korea, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, it is sourced via pamphlet to its holding museum. Artworks on Wikipedia are considered to have notability if they have a museum source. It is by famous Korean artist Byeon Sang-byeok, so the article's existence here since 2009 has enhanced Wikipedia's Korean art collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link to that guideline? I couldn't find any art specific notability guidelines. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge It's a very Korean painting that has always been in Korea, so an absence of web sources in English (but using a Korean title, presumably) means very little indeed. We only seem to have about a dozen articles on individual Korean paintings, which is far too few, given their distinctive and old tradition. Byeon Sang-byeok, the artist, is a significant figure, with one only one other article on an individual work. I don't doubt there are lots of sources in Korean; perhaps someone from the Korean project can find some. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 13 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) 11:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and no merge. Sufficient individual notability in Korean language [29] (Kansong Art Museum), [30] (Kyunghyang Shinmun), [31] (The Dong-a Ilbo), and more. I'm sure it's covered extensively in print books on art too. toobigtokale (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're familiar with Korean could you add these into the article? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can quickly put some stuff in; my to-do list is pretty long so I want to prioritize other major articles if that makes sense. Lot of important missing info about Korea on Wikipedia toobigtokale (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'll take your word that the sources you've provided establish notability and change my stance to keep/withdraw the nomination. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:55, 21 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 00:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisville killings[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:EVENTCRIT; as listed there [r]outine kinds of news events (including most crimes... – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. All the references seem to merely report what happened in this awful thing, but there is no wider/long-term significance. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the nominator says, no longer-term coverage; a source is giving me nothing subsequent to their guilty plea.— Moriwen (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a notable case with plenty of sourcing. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 19 March 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) 10:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:LASTING. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Domestic killings are not uncommon and are not inherently notable. Sourcing doesn't seem to exist beyond reporting of the sequence of events as they happened. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midreshet Tavor for Zionist Leadership[edit]

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

Does not seem notable. Article cites three outlets, which I've machine translated. All article are fluff pieces on the subject, which is fine and can help constitute notability, but Emek seems wholly unreliable. Ynet is probably reliable. I would lean unreliable with Mida. Remsense诉 15:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm wondering what sort of notability one looks for in a school. Wikipedia guidelines seem to indicate the bar is set at notability within one's field and how high is that bar for "the field of schools"? Are only Harvard and Juilliard notable because they are in the news whenever some famous alumnus is appointed to SCOTUS or wins an Oscar? Initially, it appears that one can make a good argument that since other similarly notable schools have no article, then this should also have no article, but then maybe the WP:Be bold rule applies? So there's a bad article or two. I found another good article demonstrating that a) this school exists and that b) it's written about online and in newspapers and serves a role in society and in IDF military preparedness. 15:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@DRosenbach: it sounds like you were reading WP:NPROF which covers people in academia. Schools are covered under WP:GNG or if the institution is for-profit then the GNG WP:NCORP sourcing guidelines might come into play. See WP:NSCHOOL. S0091 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Judaism, and Israel. Skynxnex (talk) 16:51, 6 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!} 07:24, 13 March 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) 10:14, 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 redirect‎ to IDBI Bank. ✗plicit 11:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDBI Capital[edit]

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

Unsourced, written like a LinkedIn page, can't find anything on Google BrigadierG (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. BrigadierG (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Searches about this subsidiary operation find little beyond announcement coverage [32] which is insufficient to establish specific notability. A redirect to the article on the IDBI Bank parent might be an alterative to deletion? AllyD (talk) 10:02, 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!} 07:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IDBI Bank: I suggested above that this subsidiary lacks evidence of specific notability. Despite coverage in recent days of a case settlement with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (e.g. "IDBI Capital Markets & Securities Settle Case With Sebi; Pays Rs 13 Lakh As Settlement Fee"), I don't see that as amounting to substantial coverage. A redirect to the parent seems the best outcome. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 19 March 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) 10:14, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woodgrove Retirement Village[edit]

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

No indication of notability per the sources presented, the creator disruptively moved the page back to namespace, so I couldn't draftify it again. zoglophie^•talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. zoglophie^•talk• 10:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing of any notability here. Sources are purely promotional and simple listings . No RSs. Searches found nothing better. Paid for editing ? Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too would delete (entirely routine retirement development such as is found in any city, and difficult to exist in Wikipedia without appearing promotional). But Zoglophie, please don't describe the move to main space as "disruptively", as this biases the AfD discussion. It is entirely correct that an article's creator should move it to main space if they disagree with an AfC decision that it should be draftified. You are also quite right, subsequently, to bring it to AfD for a broader opinion. This is all normal procedure, nothing disruptive about it. Elemimele (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i termed it disruptive was due to their dubious edit summary which said "improved". But, there was nothing new added, instead, just tweaking the existing promotional stuff with self published websites. zoglophie^•talk• 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough! Elemimele (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really just a housing development, we delete those all the time.James.folsom (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Housing developments are essentially businesses rather than municipalities, and need to pass WP:NBUSINESS. We have no evidence that this one does. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability, sources are nothing more than directory listings and churnalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources present or found to establish notability. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 19:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence it passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG more broadly, or WP:NBUSINESS. Specifically, it fails my longstanding standards for estates of this type, because its far too small to be per se notable. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 26 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 Blue Line (Dubai Metro). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

City Centre Mirdif (Dubai Metro)[edit]

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

This should be a redirect to Blue Line (Dubai Metro); as an unopened subway station with no secondary coverage (or references at all), it fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL, but the WP:BLAR has been repeatedly reverted, so here we are. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Saudi Arabia. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 18 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!} 07:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blue Line (Dubai Metro). Web searches with several keywords have failed to find many sources with enough information to be cited in the article. Redtree21 (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MDTA Mahbatul Ulum[edit]

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

WP:NONPROFIT guidelines state that organizations, including schools, must meet specific criteria. Firstly, their activities should have a national or international scope. Secondly, the organization must have received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. However, in the case of this school, there are only two references available, and they do not directly pertain to the school. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating that the school is known nationally. Ckfasdf (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 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!} 07:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find sources about the school in a web search, hence there is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Redtree21 (talk) 07:56, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Globe Company Standard[edit]

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

Promotional article of a non-notable certification program. Largely unsourced and does not seem to warrant a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article provides no sources, The external link section only contains a link to the website of the article's subject. Shadow311 (talk) 15:13, 13 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!} 07:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most sources I can find are commercial sources that do not meet WP:RS, specifically websites of other companies with the certification that are providing customer-oriented information about it. Redtree21 (talk) 08:02, 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. Thanks to User:Kuru for their comments. This probably could have been closed without a relist. Paid editors are becoming more sophisticated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Book Group[edit]

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

"Contributor Content" blogs fail WP:RELY, and thus fail ncorp. She was ^afairy 06:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 07:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: USA Today is clearly a reliable source so this alone shows it qualifies as being notable. Additionally, the company has been responsible for publishing several notable books such as "Shifting", "All This Healing is Killing me", "Living and Touring with Alice Cooper", Balaclava, Surviving Hospice and "Leaving Bacon Behind". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buridicu (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just because a company has helped published notable books does not automatically make the company notable. Contributor Content pieces are not reliable. She was ^afairy 07:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond what Shewasafairy said, these books have questionable notability per WP:NBOOK. Please note that AB Newswire is specifically a PR platform, so it is not considered a reliable source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all of the titles mentioned above and they are all on Amazon and notable. I agree that ABNewswire isn't notable or reliable but the books themselves, published by Manhattan Book Group, are notable. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, both the USAToday and LAMag sources are very clearly labeled as contributor blog posts. Ceoworld.biz is also a CRO/PR platform. I've removed those. Significa liberdade did a solid job removing many other PR sources, including some known blackhat SEO sources. Searches only show the same junk and more SEO placement. That leaves us with a single directory entry provided by the company. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources from the previous version of the page don't meet WP:NCORP. All of the sources were either passing mentions, primary sources, or sources such as blogs (even though the USA Today source is considered WP:GREL with regards to actual content, that particular source was labeled as a blog). Beyond that, I couldn't really find anything significant in reliable secondary sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not labeled as a "blog". It's labeled as "Contributor Content." There's a difference as far as I can tell. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the analysis of the sources above. Promotional contributor content is useless for establishing notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep USA Today is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. The Manhattan Book Group USA Today article, which was originally included as a reference for this page and has since been removed, is marked "contributor content," not blog. The contributor in this case, Molly Peck, must have been vetted by USA Today to become a contributor. And I'd also assume that her articles are vetted by USA Today prior to publishing. "Editors agree that USA Today is generally reliable. As the largest newspaper in the U.S., editors note that the newspaper has a very good editing system and its centrism." Nowhere does Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources specify anything about "contributor content" from USA Today being unreliable. There's no distinction between "contributor content" and other articles on USA Today as per Wikipedia.--2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Stojan, not Molly Peck* 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have fixed this. Please see WP:RS/P again.
It's a Delete from me. TLA^tlak 03:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contributor content "unreliability" seems to be your opinion. Not convincing. 2601:188:CE80:E280:2CAD:FA20:7988:1C5A (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact. The blog post is written by a brand marketing 'consultant' (First North Marketing), and has a clear disclaimer: ""Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY network were not involved in the creation of this content". USA Today isn't going to add silly adcopy to professional article like "a singular entity stands out as a symbol of innovation and creativity" or "this independent publishing house is breaking conventions, transforming the publishing landscape, and providing unparalleled opportunities for authors." That's just in the first paragraph; the rest is silly puffery. This is utter, amateur-hour garbage. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline ~~Keep~~ for me due to the Mariel Hemingway connection. Found this article. I know we don’t generally use YouTube as a source, but a video of Mariel endorsing Manhattan Book Group does exist here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:CE80:E280:2517:F719:A387:A11 (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'marketsherald' is Hudson Coldblue blackhat SEO/PR farm pretending to be a news site. Same farm as the 'hudsonweekly' blackhat ref added by you to the article. Please note that you only get one vote per person; cycling to another IP on the same /64 in New Hampshire does not make you a new entity. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete company not notable and no source for notability found. Powerviki (talk) 11:24, 17 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!} 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Inc. source is provided by company, USA Today contributors are unreliable, and Elucid magazine fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable based on news sources found in search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.161.62.210 (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added another blackhat SEO dump site, an advertorial on a PR site, and the same press release. As this "company" has been heavily engaged in paid placement and PR efforts, you'll need to dig harder to find actual reliable sources. I was not able to locate anything remotely notable. Frankly, the only keeps are a new COI editor, and two IPs - one of which is located in the same city as the group that runs the subject of the article. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source meets GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines for establishing notability. We require in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, not marketing PR and spin. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ishlah Mosque, Bengkalis[edit]

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

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:NBUILDING. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable article. Attempted to PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock/blocked editor). Ckfasdf (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. Owen× ☎ 07:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete No real claim of notability for this relatively recently constructed mosque. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mosque does not have adequate coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NBUILDING. Redtree21 (talk) 08:09, 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 redirect‎ to TAROM#Incidents and accidents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM Flight 381[edit]

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

One, the incident is fairly routine. Two, the only source is a user-contributed wiki, which, you know, isn’t quite a reliable source. — Biruitorul ^Talk 07:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TAROM#Incidents and accidents. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA as a routine event without historical significance. Redtree21 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reditect to TAROM#Incidents and accidents – We should not have articles on every aircraft that just got stalled, also mentioning that there is no reliable sources to establish notability. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 08:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, France, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alvino Kusumabrata[edit]

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

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:JOURNALIST. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable BPL. Proposed for PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock) Ckfasdf (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Indonesia. Owen× ☎ 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did my own BEFORE, and came up with nothing proving that this person has significant coverage sufficient to prove notability. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 17:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Lacks significant, non-local coverage. The main source of biographical information is an interview. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:21, 23 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!} 23:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shayamal Vallabhjee[edit]

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

The available sources include passing mentions, interviews, and profiles, although some lack reliability. Notably, there's insufficient substantial coverage from reputable third-party sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Consequently, it fails to meet the criteria set forth in WP:GNG and WP:BIO. It's crucial to remember that notability isn't inherited, meaning that having notable clients doesn't automatically confer notability. GSS ^💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and India. GSS ^💬 04:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Sportspeople, Health and fitness, Medicine, Psychology, and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails notability and the sources are mostly unreliable that are blogs and another with error. Even personal life segment does not have any coverage from third party sources. It also fails WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for the reasons that I stated in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alister_De_Bellotte. Doctors, coaches, and other staff on teams are not automatically notable. If they fail WP:SIGCOV, they fail WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Conway[edit]

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

I could not find significant coverage of him to meet WP:BIO. Also does not meet WP:PROF, google scholar comes up with a namesake who is an expert in sexual health. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are two claims to notability I looked at carefully. That he is an author, and that he is the three time winner of the Larry Wall Award for Practical Utility. I also considered NPROF but that one is a clear fail. So looking at these others, I looked up the Larry Wall Award, and was rather surprised that most hits were talking about Conway, the three times winner. I could only find one other winner [33] and this posting explains why [34]. In any case the award is just a Perl conference award [35] and I don't think this is significant enough to confer notability. So the other guideline I looked at was WP:NAUTHOR where there are two books that he has authored (and one he has contributed to). One of these has a page. Perl Best Practices is a stub article. The book has a number of reviews I could find, although the quality of reviews would need assessment. So is it a notable book?

My reason for not yet making this a !vote is that I would consider a WP:ATD such as a redirect, but it is not clear whether the book is notable, in which case the best outcome of this AfD would be to merge content here with the book stub (in a section on the author). If the book is of marginal notability, might it actually be better to redirect that stub here? Or if the book has no notability at all, maybe that should be deleted too. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Perl Best Practices book was a major publication and inspired several modules based on it. Perl is no longer widely used for programming, which is why references are a bit dated. But Damian's work in Raku is very significant. Hard to qualify with references, but I would suggest he is one of the most significant Australian contributers to open source programming. Teraplane (talk) 01:25, 10 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!} 04:30, 13 March 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) 06:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No further comments on what I stated above but Teraplane calls the Best Practices book a major publication. Whether major publication == notable work is not the issue here, as the page is about the author. However a refusal to mention the book anywhere would seem to be a poor decision, but the author's page is the fuller, and under WP:PAGEDECIDE I would suggest that the book is merged into the author's page, to the benefit of them both. This would need to be kept in that instance. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazu Shigenobu[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability guidelines as per WP:SPORTCRIT. Only one of the three references in the article is not from a database, and even then, not much detail is given in this source about the subject and it is on the website of the team the subject plays for. Redtree21 (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV and approaches failing WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:50, 26 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 Red Wheel/Weiser. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phanes Press[edit]

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

Not notable. Was purchased 20 years ago, no coverage before or after. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're an imprint, merge to Red Wheel Weiser Conari. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Companies, Religion, Spirituality, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red Wheel/Weiser if that can be confirmed. Redirect only would be problematic as this is not currently mentioned at destination article. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red Wheel/Weiser and add mention of Phanes Press on this article. Phanes Press does appear to be an imprint of Red Wheel/Weiser, see [36]. The article itself does not meet notability guidelines at WP:ORGCRIT - most web results for it are on the websites of online book retailers. Redtree21 (talk) 07:40, 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUOA-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: it has a longer history than most DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations… and it spent that time as either a TBN translator or a relay for WVUA-CA; no separate notability comes from that era. It's been the usual no-local-programming and no-significant coverage DTV America/HC2/Innovate station ever since. Yet another nominal survivor of that bulk nomination of Innovate stations from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beru Revue[edit]

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

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The principal attempt at a notability claim here is that they had "one notable radio hit", but without any attempt at sourcing that the song was ever actually a hit -- NMUSIC #2 looking for IFPI-certified national pop charts on the order of Billboard, while music publicity mavens tend to indiscriminately attach the word "hit" to any song that ever got played on any radio station at all, so a song isn't automatically a notability-clinching "hit" just because you call it one without proper sourcing for that. But there's no other strong notability claim here at all, the referencing is entirely to (deadlinked) primary sourcing and blogs that aren't support for notability without a shred of WP:GNG-building coverage about them shown, and the article has been flagged as needing better referencing since 2010 without improvement.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few articles in the Delco Times; [37] is an example. I'm not sure how good of a source it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 6 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!} 02:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. In addition to the above article in the Delco Times, I was able to find [38] [39] [40] ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – An easy pass per the WP:THREE raised by Editorofthewiki. TLA^tlak 02:16, 20 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 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 no consensus‎. given the divided opinion on the quality of sources available. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Vargas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously nominated in a 48-article bundle which was closed as a procedural keep due to the bundle's size. This person has received some coverage in the LA Times, among other sources, but most of it is WP:ROTM election coverage. The only good thing I could find was this from the LA Times, this from Al Día News and maybe this from Hispanic Executive. The latter two are not major sources. The rest of the coverage that I could find is non-independent. He has held many positions within presidential administrations but none of them confer notability, and I don't think being named in a Time magazine makes you notable either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Finance, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a relevant local mayor with sufficent news coverage. Jg10101 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn’t even a mayor. Are you confusing him with the others listed at the bundle? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was a mayor. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I somehow missed that. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Baldwin Park CA is in no sense large enough that its mayors would get an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but this article isn't what it would need to be. At the mayoral level, notability is not established by minimally verifying that the person existed, it's established by writing and sourcing substantial content about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this isn't doing that. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 2 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!} 06:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks notable to me. Mevoelo (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that on the surface but the only seemingly decent non-WP:ROTM, independent sources I could find are the LA Times article linked in the nom statement (which is still about his political career, which definitely does not meet notability guidelines alone), the Time and Hispanic magazine mentions and I guess the Al Dia and Hispanic Executive articles; however, Al Dia is local Philadelphia newspaper and I'm not quite sure what Hispanic Executive is but it seems to be rather obscure. The article about his being appointed to the White House Fellowships Commission and Al Dia article about his being awarded the Manuel Torres Award don't really contribute to notability in my opinion, as those positions/awards don't confer notability, and the White House one is not independent. It's a possibility there could be more sources, but all in all, I just don't think there's enough here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful if those editors arguing to Keep this article could state which sources demonstrate GNG instead of stating "looks notable". Specificity helps everyone here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors are not notable under WP:NPOL and there is no sourcing which suggests he's notable for any other reason. SportingFlyer T·C 01:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer, I would think that mayors are covered by WP:NPOL #2, though I don't think he meets it. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does cover them, but they aren't "inherently" notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: normally I would agree being mayor of a mid-sized town does not meet WP:NPOL but in addition to the other sources, he was covered by the Wall Street Journal ProQuest 398324421 (small bio, described Baldwin Park as a "major town"), this retrospective by the LA Times when he decided not to run for mayor again (continued here), and a 2015 piece about his work with the Hispanic Scholarship Fund by The Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education ProQuest 1650380227. There are also other possible sources in Spanish I did not assess. S0091 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding more sources. I would probably consider the article on his retirement to be fairly WP:ROTM local political coverage, though the others aren't bad. Not sure if I'm sold yet, though. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider sources just found (see above this post)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per S0091, I added several articles found on newspapers.com. He has a difficult name to research since it is rather generic in California. Not only was he mayor but also a Hispanic leader as president of an important not-for profit scholarship fund catering to Latinos as well as appointed to various federal commission by 4 separate presidents, both Republican and Democrat. Patapsco913 (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BottleOfChocolateMilk, @Bearcat and @SportingFlyer for their consideration given the improvements. S0091 (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winton, Richard (November 17, 1996). "Young Baldwin Park Mayor to Step Aside". The Los Angeles Times. pp. B12, B14 – via Newspapers.com.

Quintanilla, Michael (August 28, 1994). "Coming Home". The Los Angeles Times. pp. E1, E5 – via Newspapers.com.

"All About the Numbers: Vargas Takes the Helm of the HSF". Latino Magazine. Winter 2014.

The first two are local coverage, I have no idea if the last is reliable or not considering how interview-y it is. If he's notable, it's not as a mayor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point about local coverage? There is no policy against using local sources. If that were the case, Wikipedia would have very few profiles of mayors most of which are developed using local sources. I simply went to newspapers.com, did a search and quickly found a couple of articles where Vargas is the subject of the article. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There are plenty of reliable secondary sources about Vargas that fit this definition amounting to significant coverage. A simple search also shows that he has appeared on Cspan numerous times not in relation to his mayor ship. Considering that he is a figure from the 1990s and 2000s, how did your review of the newspaper archive sites go? I came up with a couple of articles upon a cursory review. Patapsco913 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have very few profiles of mayors, because simply having coverage is not a guarantee the subject is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopaedia - and almost every politician will have something about them written somewhere, even if they're a mayor of a small town. For mayors we will generally delete if they have only received coverage of being a mayor in local sources. SportingFlyer T·C 14:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer Vargas has received coverage in The Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Newsweek among other national or non-local sources. S0091 (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer There are 1000s of profiles of mayors. The WP:BIO guideline does not exclude local coverage from consideration. There is WP:SECONDARY coverage as well as ongoing coverage of his career, and the coverage does not appear to be trivial per the objective WP:GNG and WP:BASIC standards. Did you look at the newspaper archives that are available via the Wikipedia library? 00:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Just commenting that every mayor is bound to have plenty of local coverage, so as Bearcat has said before, purely local coverage is generally unlikely to provide notability unless we want articles on every mayor in the country. In any case, I wouldn't be too worried about keeping it; it looks like this discussion will probably be closed as no consensus, given the final relist. At this point I'm kind of on the fence about notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is nothing in the guidelines about local coverage and it is completely false that a mayor solely with "local coverage" sources are unlikely to provide notability. Where did you get this? So a mayor in California needs to have a newspaper in Cleveland write an article about him or her? Pretty silly. And you seem to define everything as "local coverage". I ask did you check the newspaper archives and research the subject considering he was a mayor in the 1990s and fund administrator in the 2000s? Did you notify people who worked on the article? You seem to be on a mission to delete every mayor on Wikipedia with some made up rule about local sources or based on some modifiable essay about "Run of the Mill." The notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city; rather it depends on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article regardless of the size of the city or the use of so-called "local sources".Patapsco913 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is "made up" – it's how we typically review articles about people whose only claim to notability is being a local politician. Just because someone has something written about them somewhere does not mean they are necessarily eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman much? Where did I say that if "someone has something written about them somewhere means they are eligible for an article?" Whether an article solely consists of so-called "local sourcing" does not mean that a mayor is usually non-notable. Did you check the newspaper archives or just do a google search on a pre-internet mayor from the 1990s? There is plenty of information already in the article to support a substantive article about the mayor's political impact not to mention his role as CEO of the Hispanic Scholarship Fund and his service on four separate commissions spanning 4 presidencies. He has even appeared on CSPAN four times.Patapsco913 (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If he's notable, it would be because he's a CEO. I will say it again, we generally do not include articles on mayors of small towns. SportingFlyer T·C 16:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? That is not in the guidelines at all. As I said before, the notability of a mayor does not rest on the population of the city; rather it depends on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact. If that can be done, then a mayor can keep an article regardless of the size of the city or the use of so-called "local sources". I would not deem a city of 75,000 a small town. Notability does not have to rest on one element: Vargas' was mayor with a significant impact as well as a Hispanic leader both documented in the article. You seem to be hung up on the size of the city which has no role in notability. Heck there is even sourcing from the Boston Globe and Newsday in the article. I guess your search for sources was pretty minimal, eh?Patapsco913 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't need a Cleveland article written about him, no. And sometimes local coverage can provide notability, yes; I just said that most of the time it doesn't, as every mayor will have a certain amount of local coverage. Yes, this one has more coverage than most of the other pages in the batch, and I am aware that not all sources are local; that is why I said I am feeling more neutral about deletion. And anyway, as for my "mission to delete all the mayors on Wikipedia", it was mostly just the failed Fidel Vargas batch. Unless a bunch of people come in to comment in the next four days, this discussion will go towards no consensus. I don't really care very much at this point, battle it out as you wish, but vitriol gets us nowhere. Also, I don't really see any more major contributors to notify; I guess I'll ping SDPLPauline. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I requested @SportingFlyer's and others reconsideration, especially given @Patapsco913's fantastic job improving the article, which Sporting has in WP:AGF provided. I disagree with their assessment in this instance but that's ok; it's why we have AfDs. Like @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse says, there's no need for the discussion to be contentious. S0091 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Patapsco did put a lot of good work in on the article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vitriol seems like a strong word :-) I did not get snarky with anyone until they put words in my mouth which I do not appreciate. The ease with which I found sourcing on Newspapers.com indicates to me that a proper search was not done before nominating the article for deletion. The goal here is to improve Wikipedia and not to just blast through deletions. A mayor from the 1990s should be vetted before AFD via the newspaper archives (which often clears a paywall as well). If sources that establish notability are found, they should be added. The size of the city is not relevant. Local sourcing is sufficient (or else nearly every mayor on Wikipedia would be deleted...unless that is the goal). Personally, I would merge articles with mayors to their city rather than delete. Anyhow more people should learn how to maneuver in the Wikipedia Library. One might be able to save some articles from deletion and help to develop Wikipedia. Patapsco913 (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your arguments. I agree that more people should join the Wikipedia Library; I will myself by the end of the month. If it's any consolation I nominated this before I nominated Paul Richards, so I knew less then. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:27, 25 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) 🍪 CookieMonster 03:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the Book of Mormon[edit]

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

This isn't an article about a /thing/ or even a list. Its a list of lists related to Mormonism with no sources. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an outline, not a normal list, see Wikipedia:Outlines. I don't know why these exist, but they do, and we have a lot of them. This seems to be a decent one (though I'm unsure what they're really supposed to look like) so unless we want to delete every article in Category:Outlines I'd say keep this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It aids in navigation, sorting related things in a nice logical manner, so a valid navigational list. But yes, call it an outline article if you wish. Dream Focus 08:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an outline, which is a fancy navigational list. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted by others, this is not your everyday article, but a navigational list for this general topic. Perhaps the purpose of these types of articles could be updated, as it stands this needs to stay. Rollidan (talk) 19:08, 21 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!} 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELML[edit]

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

There are no citations in this article, and I can't find anything on the internet about this language besides papers from the authors. Those papers have a combined total of less than 100 citations. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm also mildly worried that this article was created by someone involved with the project. The article was created in 2006 by a user named Fisler. That happens to match the name of the first author on a paper about the language. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 6 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!} 01:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 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 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!} 23:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benabaye[edit]

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

No refs found in GBooks and GNews Archives. GNews hit says that a suspect from a drug den bust just happens to be from said baranggay. Alternatively, redirect to its town proper at Merida,_Leyte#Barangays --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 6 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!} 01:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 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 merge‎ to Kansas–Nebraska Act. There is a rough consensus not to keep the content as a standalone article. The Delete views have not provided a compelling reason not to merge the content into the proposed target, so this seems to be a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas and Missouri[edit]

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

There is no purpose in having a page dedicated to two states with separate pages, nor is there a reason to have a page dedicated to the relationship of two states. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<Missouri>|list of <Missouri>-related deletion discussions]]. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/<Kansas>|list of <Kansas>-related deletion discussions]]. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NotAMoleMan Before I review the notability parts: there was absolutely no reason I can see for you to notify any of the people you've notified besides Red Slash, one of which is indefinitely banned. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about that, my bad. It was my first time doing this, I'll keep that in mind next time. Thank you for telling me. NotAMoleMan (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a random pair of U.S. states. See Kansas–Nebraska Act for context about the historic interactions between these two states related to slavery. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Kansas, and Missouri. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act, which is pretty much most of this information. I don't see much else that warrants a standalone article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also support a merge to Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry). Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry, comparable to Rivalry between Cologne and Düsseldorf and California–Texas rivalry. BD2412 T 03:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a good article. Title change is okay if the state names are kept in the title. Sources are reliable, and rich. They can support more discussion of the history of the two states as the US argued about slavery. I have added some more recent references on the continuing competition between the two states. Related articles focus on politics and the past; this article takes the story to the present century. - - Prairieplant (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still only see stuff related to the Act or sports. I think merging it into the Act's legacy while mentioning the present-day law against financial incentives for pulling from the other Kansas City and stuff would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Civil War-related content would belong at Kansas–Nebraska Act#Aftermath, not here. You could just as easily have an article for any arbitrary combination of states, like Ohio and Michigan which fought a war and also has rival universities. Many other states also have shared metropolitan areas and can be said to compete or cooperate economically. This is really just WP:SYNTH, not a substantively notable topic that requires a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: You have literally just described why an article of this type on Ohio and Michigan would not be arbitrary. Something like Delaware/Idaho or New Hampshire/New Mexico would be arbitrary. BD2412 T 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Everything resulting from the war can be covered in the war's article. It's not too much. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  But it would be because the war already has an article and the university rivalry is irrelvant. Connecting those doesn't make an encylopedia article. Kansas City metropolitan area can also cover related content. Okay, bordering states aren't as arbitrary as those that don't, but there's New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, plenty of others that one could make whatever discussions of a rivalry, historical comparisons, or how their economies are related, but those just aren't articles we need. Reywas92^Talk 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: New York and New Jersey, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Maryland and Virginia, Oregon and Washington, Florida and Georgia, yes, we actually could make pretty solid articles for all of those. Neighboring states often do involve themselves in rivalries along several dimensions of cultural significance, including athletic bragging rights due to cross-border proximities, and competition for business and natural resources. BD2412 T 02:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those other articles are wholly legal and political, and not brought to the present. Kansas and Missouri had a major role in the slavery debate and the war, making them a unique pair of states. - - Prairieplant (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like you could just as easily have Kansas and Nebraska since the Act created both. Any pair of states is unique with some sort of relationship; we already have articles about the role in the war, with no need for this page. Reywas92^Talk 22:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is already well documented elsewhere in the encyclopaedia. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same can go for this article after we merge it. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kansas–Nebraska Act as per Reywas92, and the small amount of material not related could be merged to the individual states' pages. There is material here worth keeping but we have better articles for that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't really need articles on 2 different similar places or similar topics. What next Jupiter and Saturn. Yes there is some content and sources but it it really appropriate for an article, such content could probably be contrived about many similar topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale: It wouldn't even be hard to write an article on comparisons between Jupiter and Saturn. Those have been compared by observers for thousands of years. BD2412 T 02:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But we shouldn't. I and other poets have compared the rain to my tears for decades. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The points of comparison between the two largest neighboring gas giants in our planetary system are more than merely poetic. BD2412 T 17:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does a comparison between Dickens and Hugo warrant an article? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would revolve around whether there are substantial reliable sources specifically comparing and contrasting Dickens to Hugo. By the way, having poked around with the question, I am confident that I could write a killer article on the history of mythological, poetic, and literary metaphors comparing tears to rain. BD2412 T 18:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there aren't, and there aren't for Kansas and Missouri. Nearly all sources I find online are either encyclopedias or about Border War (Kansas–Missouri rivalry), which focuses on the sporting context as an extension of the war context. Even so, that article contains most of the background, and the only standalone parts of this article is some OR-y talk about the two Kansas City-s. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article definitely should not be kept as-is. Would support a rename to Kansas–Missouri rivalry or a redirect to relevant Civil War-era content over deletion, though. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have Bleeding Kansas, this topic is functionally duplicative. SportingFlyer T·C 01:52, 9 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!} 01:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without Objection to Creating a Completely Different Article There may be a notable topic on a Kansas City, Kansas–Kansas City, Missouri rivalry but the current article has too many problems to salvage: the text lacks details about a potential rivalry (i.e. the actual topic), instead the text wanders into the historical Kansas–Nebraska Act, it's not well named since it's not about whole states, it's not well sourced. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The choices I see are closing this as No consensus or adding another week for relisting and I'm taking that option. Of course the discussion can be closed at any time should a closer see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no need for an article like this. As for the Civil War history, that was adequately covered in its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and Reywas. The keep !votes aren't convincing about the point of this article's existence. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:04, 27 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 TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pilipinas News[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability unknown. WP:Articles for deletion/Aksyon JournalisMO (2nd nomination) was closed as delete, so nominating later program. IgelRM (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. IgelRM (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to News5 per ATD. Nate • (chatter) 23:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (per Nate's alternative suggestion). We don't need more low-quality or stubbish articles of minor newscasts of the Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 14:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are now two separate Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again for a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I support the redirect to List of TV5 (Philippine TV network) original programming. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:25, 22 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!} 02:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CodeRush[edit]

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

This had a failed PROD several years ago on the basis that the sources were quality enough to warrant an article. I don't think this is true. The sources are all primary (both now and at the time of the PROD), and the secondary sources I could find online were self-published blogs that do not meet the standard for reliability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not find sources that are independent and reliable for the subject. Fails WP:GNG. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any WP:SIGCOV for this. Some mentions in .NET tutorial books but those are limited to "you can use this, moving on." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:11, 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Peshawar mosque attack[edit]

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

This article was created 2 days after the event, I could find no coverage after June 2013 to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013, given the same rationale I gave with the last few AfDs (it's a terror attack so should probably be noted overall in terms of their security situation, likely mentioned somewhere in overall discussions of the issue). As with most of these cases, if there is later coverage it's almost certainly not in English, so this is difficult to evaluate. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013. No analytic coverage that warrants this event having a stand alone article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:58, 24 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 Worst Year of My Life Again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ned Napier[edit]

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

I didn't find sufficient sources through a WP:BEFORE which went into significant detail to pass WP:GNG. While he was the lead in Worst Year of My Life Again I don't think he passes WP:NACTOR as he hasn't had multiple significant roles. A possible redirect could be to Worst Year of My Life Again. Suonii180 (talk) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Suonii180 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Worst Year of My Life Again as an alternative to deletion. The current sourcing of the article is insufficient to serve as a standalone article. Bandit Heeler (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR, no multiple significant roles. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Worst Year of My Life Again: fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. S0091 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by WAPA-TV[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a TV guide, and this list lacks any sourcing from non-primary sources as a grouping. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting previous AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of programs broadcast by networks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 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 merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Makran massacre[edit]

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

I could only find coverage from April 2019. No lasting effects to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a (heavily abridged version, probably a paragraph) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019, where it is mentioned with no detail. Seems a relevant note given their security situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are some sources, but that are RS.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all from April 2019. Needs WP:LASTING coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited a source published in 2023. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2019. No evidence of sustained significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:26, 24 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.