< March 29	March 31 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apache Software Foundation projects. Star Mississippi 22:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Trafodion[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to The Apache Software Foundation. Could only find mentions in scholarly sources. IgelRM (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: List of Apache Software Foundation projects seems like a better target, if this is to be redirected. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, remember we need at least a valid reference in the redirected page to be able to include any entry in it, otherwise this page will redirect to page without any mention to this project. Mfixerer (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Source the entry there to [1], [2], and [3]. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hansraj Raghuwanshi[edit]

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

Failed WP:Artist, also WP:GNG, it has only WP:BLP1E. No in-depth article.Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, India, and Himachal Pradesh. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There is somewhat plausible coverage in media about the subject but the page with poor sources makes the page unjustifiable. I would recommend creator of the page to use more reliable sources that have more coverage about the subject. The subject was praised by Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi for his devotional song , 'Jai Shri Ram,' based on Shri Ram Temple in Ayodhya. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 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!} 19:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there other supporters for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant independent regional language news coverage with some articles covering their biography. Article in it's current state is indeed in a bad shape, but a quick search turnsup good coverage from reliable sources. Passes #1, #4, #5, #7, #10 of WP:MUSICBIO. Jim Carter 18:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Article isn’t well written and doesn’t help establish notability of the subject, but there may be a case there if the article gets some extra work. Because the sources provided are mostly national to India, the article needs to show somehow that these sources indeed demonstrate national coverage as opposed to local coverage.Contributor892z (talk) 21:05, 30 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!} 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: There seems to be a large number of sources, both from my search and what others have listed. Could let it incubate in draft for a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect‎ to Academic grading in Canada#Ontario. I have deleted it given the copyvio concerns raised and because the content is similar rendering there no need to preserve it for further merging. Star Mississippi 22:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario rubric[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The content in the article is already essentially at Academic grading in Canada and I'm not sure a redirect is specific enough to be useful, as 'Ontario rubric" is somewhat of a vague search term. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely too technical a term for wiki. It exists apparently [4] but I don't see any discussion of it outside of these types of sites for tutors or teachers. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any proper new coverage on this subject.Bradelykooper (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Academic_grading_in_Canada#Ontario. The subject is already covered there there seems to be duplication so this might end up being more of a redirect than a merge. I don't identify any potential harm in retaining a redirect so we should retain it per standard merge process and WP:CHEAP. Delete arguments above are not taking WP:ATD into consideration. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: I considered ATD before I even prodded it, I don't think it's applicable in this instance. Please don't assume I'm not taking such things into consideration. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes you did and I shared my thoughts on that as you requested. I still think it would be helpful to get additional clarity from the others advocating for delete why a merge or redirect is not a reasonable WP:ATD in this case. ~Kvng (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to disagree, but I was a bit miffed that you were making assumptions about what I have or have not considered. Thank you for apologizing. To expand a bit on what I've already said, I mentioned why I thought a merge wasn't applicable in the prod rationale (This content is solely cited to primary sources and the content there does not appear to be mergeable). Then there's the as-of-yet unmentioned concern that most of this content is actually close paraphrasing at best. I admit to being hesitant to remove even clear copyvio content in the midst of an AfD when I'm involved in the matter. Merges work best when the content in question is actually viable, adequately sourced, and not duplicative. Redirects may be cheap but there are also reasons to delete them. Rubrics are not exclusive to the assessment rubrics used by Ontario schools, so I think a redirect would be a bit vague and obscure at the current title (#8). There aren't really reliable sources using this exact phrase to even describe it this way. ~~If the copyvio content is actually deleted, it wouldn't even be mentioned in the target article,~~ and that in itself would be a reason to not have a redirect (I've seen this argument a lot at RFD). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, "Ontario rubric" isn't that much of a stretch compared to the official name for the assessment rubric, given that it is a rubric used in Ontario. So maybe my concerns about it being vague/obscure don't meet the enough threshold. On the off chance a reader typed this in, they probably wouldn't be terribly surprised if they got redirected. There is still the issue of the copyvio content though. I did do a basic search for sources and I'm having trouble finding anything that's independent and reliable that could be used to write replacement content about the rubric at the proposed target. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Academic_grading_in_Canada#Ontario - I'm not sure why this wouldn't be applicable - and it's a well-used page, averaging 10,000 views a month, in months that are not summer. Which implies that people are looking at the page when school is in session. It's a very specific search term - not vague. Perhaps User:OakTree could review their delete. For some context, I have a child in high school, and I'm surprised how often I hear her used "rubric" in conversation (usually when going on about her teachers being off-topic) when relating to her courses - so it's a common enough term among the younger generation. Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is worth mentioning but not in article on its own. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect given it fails notability but appears to be useful as pointed out above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MicrobiologyMarcus: You do realize that there isn't anything to merge, right? I'm slightly concerned no one else seems to be concerned about the copyright violations issue. Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees somehow, but a lot of the content at Ontario rubric is an exact copy of content used elsewhere. I'm not sure why this is is somehow okay? I was a student in Ontario that used to see these rubrics on a regular basis. It's jarring to see the exact wording replicated here. It's possible I'm making some fundamental mistake here, but it really would put my mind at ease if someone addressed my concerns head on before this AfD closes. A redirect !vote makes sense to me, but a merge does not. These don't have to go together. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unable to consider an ATD without a proposed target, however one can be created at editorial discretion Star Mississippi 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roccat Browser[edit]

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

This browser does not have enough WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. The best I could find was 1 review from maketecheasier, the rest were just forum posts or unreliable. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Technology, and Software. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the technologytell review in the article, but unsure to where. IgelRM (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The app does not have too much coverage. Royal88888 (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manayunk, Philadelphia as neither of the delete !votes appear to actually contest a merge (not sure how else it should be a part of the proposed target) Star Mississippi 22:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manayunk Special Services District of Philadelphia[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. Cannot find any examples of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is a quarter century old complaint against it, [5] and a year old financial report, [6] which I think is enough to earn it a sentence in the neighborhood article though not an article of its own. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody else comments today or tomorrow, I intend to drop the flag, reflag for merge in the respective article Talk Pages and, if still answered with silence, execute the merger next week. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed by Jim.henderson as WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kvng and Jim.henderson, can you specify the Merge target article you are considering? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target I suggested in my deprod was Manayunk, Philadelphia ~Kvng (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes. Sorry for the delay; I got distracted. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : absurd stub article. This Philly bureaucracy should be a part of the Manayunk, Philadelphia article in an appropriate section but not a merge or redirect. Nirva20 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't need an article for this. Currently fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 13:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Senyonjo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, sources are mostly unreliable, BEFORE doesn’t help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Uganda. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to vote Keep yet but I want to question why this Ugandan singer's article has been nominated for deletion. I looked at the refs and there were two dead links but the others worked and they all backed up the list of three music awards. The nominator said they were unreliable sources. Why are they unreliable? Is it because they were Ugandan magazines, Ugandan Christian music magazines? Please point me to where they are blacklisted as reliable sources. Secondly, I wonder about western editors claiming non-notability for an African musician. Maybe we sometimes just don't have enough knowledge of a country's history or pop culture?LPascal (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, you probably didn't check well. I am, as a matter of fact, a Nigerian based in Nigeria, a country in Africa, particularly West Africa.

I did not want to do a source assessment as it'd be a waste of time, I think it is now necessary so that you could grasp how unreliable these sources are, IMO. Find it collapsed below;

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://observer.ug/component/content/article?id=22565:-ssenyonjo-owes-her-success-to-god (Archive)	~ Very interview-ish, suspicious 404	~ This is 404 already which tells the whole story		~ Partial
https://www.newvision.co.ug/articledetails/undefined	404 error	404 error	404 error	✘ No
https://www.musicinafrica.net/directory/jackie-ssenyonjo	"Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes."	"Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes."		✘ No
https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/business/auto/my-wheels-jackie-senyonjo-choir-leader-1535934	Interview piece	Interview piece, I wonder why the prestigious Monitor will publish this		✘ No
https://ugamusic.ug/artists/jackie-senyonjo		Blogs like this are promotional and unreliable	Single line isn't SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.thegmp.biz/jackie-senyonjo	Promotional puff	Site's about says it all "GMP (Gospel Music Promoter) is a Gospel Music promotion platform..."	https://www.thegmp.biz/jackie-senyonjo/biography	✘ No
https://www.howwe.ug/JackieSenyonjo/music	Ditto unreliable blog	Dittor	There's literally nothing of use here	✘ No
https://www.observer.ug/lifestyle/entertainment/21982-gospel-awards-to-fill-pam-awards-void	Another suspicious and alarming 404 error	Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://uggospellife.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/hit-awards-2016-the-unexpected-happened-winners-walked-away-with-accolades-full-list/		Free webhost, that is also non-notable award		✘ No
https://www.ugchristiannews.com/full-list-of-the-hit-awards-2016-winners/		No byline		✘ No
https://www.ugandanbuzz.com/kansanga-pastor-weds-another-mans-wife/		Another unreliable blog	~	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on anything else, but offline sources (i.e. dead links/404 errors) are perfectly acceptable if they meet the other criteria. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these ones still obviously do not meet. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi as the editor who wrote this article, I can attest that she is notable!.

The Observer, The Daily Monitor and New Vision are notional media publication companies and they are independent and reliable sources! Micheal Kaluba (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBAND, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:SIGCOV. Saying over and over again that someone is notable doesn't make it so; in 2006 a new editor could make this argument without evidence, but in 2024, everybody in the whole world knows we are not a free web host or social media website like MySpace for musicians. The forgoing analysis by fellow Africans leads me to believe that there is in fact no significant coverage in reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources. This consensus has developed over the past 18 years to limit articles to notable musicians. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical celebrity articles and many religious ones about how God has helped this person or their followers, are what I can find. I tend to agree with the source table, Source 1 is likely the best one, but it's not enough to keep the article.Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next Goa Legislative Assembly election[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reviewed during NPP. Speculation about an election that may be held on or before 2027. Article is 100% editor created/derived content/ wp:OR. There are zero sources about the subject. The one reference is a government document which does not discuss this but defines how elections are scheduled/run. North8000 (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Goa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per all the comments that led to the deletion decision in the first AFD. LizardJr8 (talk) 19:27, 24 March 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 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Obviously notable, but WP:TOOSOON. Sohom (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still no sources since last creation/deletion to satisfy the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as no one is arguing for retention or otherwise participating Star Mississippi 22:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Morman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. One source is a resume, another is a PR puff piece (the source is "BNM Publicity Group & Management"), and the third (the only WP:RS) mentions Morman in passing in one sentence. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I find, and I'm not sure how RS it is [7]. I don't see enough sourcing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Staff writer piece [8], seemingly promotional. I don't see anything else we can use. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already voted. so stricken. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adams County, Pennsylvania#Government as a viable ATD. There isn't consensus for a merger, but the history remains if someone believes there is material worth adding to a new subsection. Star Mississippi 22:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adams County Industrial Development Authority[edit]

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

Completely non-notable county-level government agency sourced only to their own website for 15 years. AusLondonder (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NOTADVERT — Maile (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Adams County, Pennsylvania as new Business section or subsection under Government as WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move. The organization, together with some other related organizations, has rebranded as Adams Economic Alliance. I added some references for the new name. I suggest moving the article to Adams Economic Alliance. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So what its rebranded. Its a business accelerator. No indication of signifance, and importantly the refs are WP:PRIMARY failing WP:ORGIND, no coverage fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 13:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Beverly Crest shooting[edit]

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

Non-notable crime, no sustained coverage beyond the sequence of events. Wikipedia is not a repository of news stories. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and California. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, from the details this is likely a gang shooting - they almost never have sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Again, with all due respect for the victims, unfortunately, this tragedy lacks notability. TH1980 (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SUSTAINED. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty garbaggio article by yours truly Lettlre (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the coverage from the time of event or subsequent arrest. No lasting impact. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peak School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is not notable. Many of the other ESF schools have had their articles deleted or redirected to the ESF page. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. 59.152.195.28 (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Cheung, Sonia (2015-01-14). "英基山頂小學百年歷史國際學校" [English Schools Foundation's Peak School, a century-old international school]. Sunday Kiss (in Chinese). New Media Group [zh]. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
  The article notes: "今次記者走訪了英基山頂小學，創校於1911年，是其中一間最歷史悠久的學校，創校至今已逾100個年頭。百年歷史山頂小學見證了香港的歷史。在1911年，一位滙豐銀行的英籍職員的太太感到山頂區需要一個讓小朋友學習的地方，她與幾位朋友把5、6個孩子聚在一起，在附近的平房開辦小型學校。因為學生與日俱增，平房很快便不敷應用，漸漸由家庭式小學校，變成有規模的學校，在約50年前，學校正式遷到現址。"
  From Google Translate: "This time the reporter visited the English Schools Foundation's Peak Primary School, which was founded in 1911. It is one of the oldest schools and has been in existence for more than 100 years. A century of history the Peak School has witnessed the history of Hong Kong. In 1911, the wife of a British employee of HSBC Bank felt that the Peak District needed a place for children to study. She and a few friends gathered 5 or 6 children together and opened a small school in a nearby bungalow. Due to the increasing number of students, the bungalow soon became insufficient for use. It gradually transformed from a family-style primary school into a large-scale school. About 50 years ago, the school officially moved to its current location"
2. Evans, Annemarie (2001-03-11). "Topic: Peak School 90 years". Radio Television Hong Kong. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  This is a 14-minute audio discussion of the history of Peak School from Radio Television Hong Kong.
3. "Peak School". The China Mail. 1922-12-15. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  The article notes: "PEAK SCHOOL. DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZE. Yesterday the pupils of the Rank School gathered together on the occasion of the annual prize giving successful scholars receiving their prizes, at, the hands of Mrs. Claud Severn. The earlier part of the proceedings was devoted to an entertainment and the children acquitted themselves in creditable style with songs, recitations and dancing. Amongst those present to witness the performance were the Hon. Mr. E. Irving (Director of Education) and Mrs. Irving, Mr. E. D. O. Wolfe, (Capt. Supt. of Police), Lady Roca Davies and the Rev. V. H. Copley Moyle. " THE ANNUAL REPORT. " The Head Mistress, Mrs. P. Y. Stark, then read the report for 1922 as follows: The School opened on January 5 with 58 pupils; the number of pupils present this month is 68. The attendance generally has been more regular than in 1921; during the Summer Term there was a distinct improvement. The health of "the school has been good, only one or two cases of eyes and teeth requiring attention."
4. "Peak School: Yesterday's Prize Distribution". Hongkong Telegraph. 1917-03-14. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  The article notes: "PEAK SCHOOL. Yesterday's Prize Distribution. There was a good attendance of parents end friends of the children attending the Peak School, in the lounge of the Peak Hotel yesterday afternoon, on the occassion of the annual prize dis. tribution. The presentation was performed by Lady May, who was 80companied by the Misson May, and Mr. E. Ralphs, Inspector of Sotools. Among those alsa pre- Rent were the Bishop of Victoria, Mrs, and Mins Lander. After the scholars had given several part songs and recitations —in a manner which proved they are being well trained--Mr. Ralphs read his report on the school, which was ai follows:-- The school has now completed its third year, which closes with 50 papile on the roll :" The number now is 64.32.new.pupils have been admitted and 13 have left during this period."
5. "Governor Visits Peak School". The China Mail. 1954-01-14. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  The article notes: "His Excellency the Governor and Lady Grantham this morning paid a visit to the Peak. School. They were received by the Deputy Director of Education (Mr L. G. Morgan) and the headmistress (Miss Bicheno). They toured the classrooms, displaying interest in the work of the scholars."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Peak School (traditional Chinese: 山頂小學; simplified Chinese: 山顶小学) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Peak School at Plunkett's Road has been listed as a Grade III historic building since 2010. Added information + ref to article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 15:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sourcing found by Cunard. Newspapers as sources can be problematic in that they may be largely primary sourced information, but these examples contain a mix of primary reporting and secondary history and analysis. That provides something to write the article from. The listing at grade III on a national register, per Underwaterbuffalo, does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (architecture) on its own (and, in any case, that guideline status is unclear), but even at grade III it does clearly add to the presumption of notability, which is based on the historical status of this school. The school is small but has been open for over 110 years, and it is one of the oldest Hong Kong schools. Sourcing is sufficient to write an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 English Schools Foundation#Schools. Noting that merge is the consensus -- the target is split with this and List of English Schools Foundation schools. This can be handled editorially and the close should not be taken as a !vote on the target. Star Mississippi 21:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sha Tin Junior School[edit]

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

Not notable, and fails for the same reasons as other ESF elementary schools. See WP:MILL. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of English Schools Foundation schools. Pasmorade (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to English Schools Foundation. WP:MILL is an essay and is not sufficient reason to delete. However, it is interesting to note that the article currently cites zero sources, which is a red flag. Before deciding to delete, we perform a WP:BEFORE search, which shows that Sha Tin Junior School is frequently mentioned in the South China Morning Post. However, after checking a dozen or so of these articles, it appears that most of these articles are brief mentions. So far, I haven't been able to find one that focuses in depth on Sha Tin Junior School; the newspaper typically covers STJS alongside other ESF schools, and so redirecting to English Schools Foundation seems apt. I don't agree with redirecting to List of English Schools Foundation schools, as it seems unclear whether that list meets the criteria for a stand-alone list, and the other article offers a lot more depth about the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to English Schools Foundation#Schools per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about Sha Tin Junior School (traditional Chinese: 沙田小學; simplified Chinese: 沙田小学) in my searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quarry Bay School[edit]

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

Please withdraw it. Does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Notice that no other elementary school in the English Schools Foundation group has its own page. Besides, there is nothing significant about Quarry Bay school, compared to the others. See WP:MILL. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of English Schools Foundation schools. Pasmorade (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It's one of the oldest English-language schools in the territory which follow the English curriculum. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Siu, Kwok-kin 蕭國健 (2023). 舊日足跡：香港地區與民生尋蹤 [Footprints of the Past: Tracing the Hong Kong Region and People's Livelihoods] (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Joint Publishing. pp. 92–93. ISBN 978-962-04-5095-2. Retrieved 2024-04-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "前鰂魚涌英童學校 (Former Quarry Bay British School) 位於香港島鰂魚涌英皇道986號小山丘上。 ... 1907年後,隨着太古船塢及其他廠房設施開始投入運作, 鰂魚涌成為超過萬人生活的新社區,不少英籍員工攜同家人遷入該地,以方便工作。1924年,港府決定特別為太古工業城的英籍孩童在鰂魚涌興建鰂魚涌英童學校(Quarry Bay School),學校由 Messrs Little, Adams and Wood興建,於1926年建成啟用。... 該校於1980年搬遷到寶馬山,舊校舍由社會福利署接管, 改作培志男童院,並加建高欄。"
  From Google Translate: "Former Quarry Bay British School is located on a hill at No. 986 King's Road, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong Island. ...After 1907, as Taikoo Dockyard and other factory facilities began to operate, Quarry Bay became a new community where more than 10,000 people lived. Many British employees moved there with their families to facilitate their work. In 1924, the Hong Kong government decided to build Quarry Bay School in Quarry Bay specifically for British children in Taikoo Industrial City. The school was built by Messrs Little, Adams and Wood and opened in 1926. ... The school moved to Bramma Hill in 1980. The old school building was taken over by the Social Welfare Department and converted into the Pui Chi Boys' Home, with high railings added."
  The book notes: "該校於1980年搬遷到寶馬山,舊校舍由社會福利署接管, 改作培志男童院,並加建高欄。原址曾為香港青少年發展聯會轄下的德育發展中心,並為學校提供日營訓練服務,其後空置。現不對外開放。該建築被列為三級歷史建築。"
2. Wong, Jacky (1997-07-06). "Relics sealed with a kiss e". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-04-02. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
  The article notes: "As Hong Kong entered its new era as a Special Administrative Region of China, students at Quarry Bay School lovingly sealed their personal "relics" inside a time capsule and buried them in the school grounds. ... Hundreds of students and staff donated a wide variety of items for the capsule, the sealing of which marked the end of British sovereignty. ... Ms Mair and Ms Blaauw, who attended the school in the 1930s, both left mementos in the capsule, and so those students prising it open will get a taste of the school's life over 100 years or so. ... Students and staff wore T-shirts featuring the national flags of Britain and the People's Republic of China, plus a bauhinia, Hong Kong's symbolic flower which represents the transition of the territory to the "one country, two systems" policy."
3. Allum, Jo (January 2011). "Primarily Mandarin". Teacher: The National Education Magazine. pp. 24–27. ISSN 1449-9274. Retrieved 2024-04-02.
  The Google snippet view notes: "Mandarin lessons at Hong Kong’s Quarry Bay School use various learning approaches, including educational games, songs, reading groups, role playing, poster making and poetry.
4. Griffin, Kathy (2001-09-15). "Breaking the rules in the playground: One Quarry Bay school has embarked on a learning curve by turning its bare yard into a creative haven, says Kathy Griffin". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 2420279359.
  The article notes: "This, however, is less of an issue in international schools. At Quarry Bay School, the renovated playground was intended to be an extension of classroom learning. Everything from the decision on how to alter the playground to the use of the equipment once it was completed, was to be a learning experience. A student council with representatives from each year group, with children ranging in age from five to 11, was consulted on the major decisions. All students were allowed to add to a wish list that included swings, a swimming pool and a bouncy castle."
5. There are a large number of newspaper articles from Hong Kong Public Libraries covering the school's establishment and history throughout the years.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Quarry Bay School (traditional Chinese: 鰂魚涌學校; simplified Chinese: 鲗鱼涌学校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Cunard. Secondary sources exist that discuss the history of the school and GNG is met. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard, Necrothesp and Sirfurboy. 59.152.195.28 (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The former building of Quarry Bay School, located at No. 986 King's Road, in Quarry Bay, has been listed as a Grade III historic building since 2010. I have added this piece of information, together with ref and a link to the conservation notice, which contains a historical background in English. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG through independent sources. I've added two of the links from Cunard (well done!).Oblivy (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WizardGamer775 please stop the nonsense. 219.77.182.250 (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already withdrew it after seeing what others have said. Do not make personal attacks. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protégé (restaurant)[edit]

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

Please withdraw the nomination WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC) I have searched the internet and performed WP:BEFORE, and cannot find any sources attesting to this restaurant's notability. The only new thing I've found about this restaurant is that it was founded by French Laundry alumni. Other than that, and possessing Michelin stars, I do not see how this restaurant can be notable. [reply]

~~See WP:MILL and WP:ORGDEPTH.~~

~~If sources can be found to attest to the notability of this restaurant, this would be good, otherwise, the article may have to be deleted.~~ WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Business. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is another obvious keep per GNG by a nominator who has jumped to AfD unnecessarily multiple times now. Nominator says they "[could not] find any sources attesting to this restaurant's notability" when completing WP:BEFORE, yet (from a simple Google search) I was able to very quickly and easily find plenty of in-depth coverage specifically focused on the restaurant and published by independent and reliable sources. The article has 10+ sources and should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Another Believer. I think you should have expanded the article from the get-go. It seems as if people have to nominate your articles for deletion to get the article to have proper content. Creating one-sentence articles is not enough; please aim to expand on the more prior to moving them into the article space. People have previously advised you on this before and I ask that you take this into account.

Also, please refrain from personal attacks and observe proper AfD etiquette. WizardGamer775 (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing WizardGamer775 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I propose Speedy keep and close. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think once an admin passes by they can do it. WizardGamer775 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Ujjain rape case[edit]

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

I can't see that this case is notable enough to have its own article per WP:NOTNEWS. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Wikipedia is not the place for news. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS. This article hasn't changed much since October of last year, and I did make an argument around that time on the talk page that this would most likely qualify for deletion under said policy. I will not object to recreation if circumstances change regarding this case. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 21:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.Sk1728 (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg as a viable ATD. History is there if someone finds information worth merging Star Mississippi 21:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Elisabeth Sybille of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her list of honours appear to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant independent secondary coverage, just genealogy listings. Being born into nobility (and its associated dynastic honors) does not confer inherent notability. JoelleJay (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not keep then Merge to Duke Johann Albrecht of Mecklenburg. Jahaza (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Duke John Albert of Mecklenburg. At present there isn't anything worth merging over. -- asilvering (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Star Mississippi 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Khousadian[edit]

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

Article is based completely off interviews and press releases. I ~~can~~ can't seem to find any other sort of actual coverage of the subject. I removed a section on apparent awards but was only supported by a press release. I could find nothing else to support any notability as per WP:ANYBIO. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Education. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article was nominated for G11 as I was writing this up so I am good either way but will leave this up in case the G11 doesn't hold up. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some known SEO sources removed. The remaining "shoutoutla" is likely more vanity nonsense. Note that there is a tremendous number of blackhat SEO blogs and publications out there that have advertorials for this person. It's very hard to pick out anything that's actually reliable since there's been an extensive effort of self-promotion. For transparency, I've blocked the article creator until they can utilize the proper paid disclosures - this was based on prior articles they created that were clearly paid spam. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage in independent reliable sources. There's plenty of press releases though. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has been moved to draft for revision by editor Significa liberdade. After some time, the author of the article moved the article back to the main space without significant revisions. As for the article itself, I did not find any WP:RS Bulklana (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- definitely not notable. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:18, 30 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. Star Mississippi 21:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franc Lena[edit]

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

Lena has played a few times in the second tier of Albania but there is no apparent significant coverage, so WP:SPORTBASIC looks doubtful. All that I can find are transfer announcements that mention him briefly like Panorama, ABC News 1, a copy and paste of a press announcement from his own club, ABC News 2, a single passing mention, and 2lonline. He appears to be known as "Franci Lena" but searching this also doesn't yield any WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Albanian second tier even failed the old football guideline as, with stadium attendance is in the hundreds, the league was clearly not professional. Likewise, this was clearly not an impactful football career. Geschichte (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable at all. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this fails WP:SPORTBASIC, necessarily, but it clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 01:42, 31 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 IDN Media. Star Mississippi 21:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yummy (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news. scope_creep^Talk 16:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company IDN Media. It's hard to evaluate the Indonesian sources, and there's a lot of cross-reporting between the IDN media properties, but [9], [10], and [12] are probably independent. Are they based on anything other than an IDN press release announcing the app though? Based on their content, probably not. ~ A412 ^talk! 07:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IDN Media – I noted that there's a lot of circular referencing in the earlier nomination from IDN Media properties. As A412, the independent content might just be churnalism. However, because I'm not familiar with the Indonesian language, I might be missing something so I'm okay with a weak keep as well. TLA^tlak 03:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus can change and has regarding this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Webster (actor)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was not notable when deleted at AFD before, and still is not notable. All sources are passing mentions, so fail WP:SIGCOV and hence WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @UtherSRG In my talk page, another editor suggested that the notability was established after the previous AfD. I suggest viewing my talk page to see better their arguments.

Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn You're invited to participate. Kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 🇮🇹 15:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its advisable if you provide the diffs. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Has multiple significant roles, famous actor, which makes him notable.

Is main cast member on Mayor of Kingstown, had prominent roles on NCIS and 9-1-1. Has numerous TV roles. Was also in famous films like Independence BilboBeggins (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article about him from Looper is particularly helpful in establishing notability. "Why Dr. Hudson From CSI: Vegas Looks So Familiar" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is no comparison to his acting career as it was in 2017 and how it has progressed since. Easily meets GNG, per his sourced acting resume since the last AfD in 2017. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Eastmain that that Looper article is good coverage. Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 31 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 14:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Gaines[edit]

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

Unref blp. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Hawaii. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced BLP fails WP:NACTOR/WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG. At least two accounts and probably 1 or more anon editors appear to be the subject. Although IMDB is a junk source and probably also self edited the list is for small parts often un-credited. The article claims "Arguably the most well-known movies Gaines appeared in were The Last Hunter" which IMDB lists as "Deserter(uncredited)". I can't find any indication of any nobility. KylieTastic (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia doesn't allow biographies of living people that don't cite any reliable sources. Everyone has been trying to look for sources such as newspaper or magazine articles about James Gaines, but we aren't finding any. (And no, we can't really cite IMDb as a source, either.) Cielquiparle (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm getting unrelated James Gaines even when using Philippines as a modifier in GNews Archives. He has a mention in this book but that's about it in my GBooks search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with the above opinions - merely being in a number of films is not innately notable. There are no apparent references to establish notability, including in book searches. IMDb is a reference source for facts but does not establish notability.WmLawson (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assam cricketers. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nipan Deka[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the criteria. So I have AfDed. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, India, and Assam. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: additionationally WP:TOOSOON might be heard on. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers Looks to fail WP:GNG although there is some coverage of the subject, I don't think any of it passes. There is a suitable redirect here though per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers fails WP:GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Assam cricketers per Rugbyfan22.Sk1728 (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 see a consensus to Keep this article, seeing several editors invoke WP:HEY in their comments. A possible Merge/Redirect/Rename discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COPE (Boy Scouts of America)[edit]

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

I boldly re-directed to Boy Scouts of America, because the article is entirely primary sourced, and some contents I trimmed out were unsourced and added by WP:SPA in these diffs. The re-direct was challenged by an editor, so I am nominating for re-direct to Boy Scouts of America I believe the program itself does not have significant reliable secondary source coverage independent of Boy Scounts of America. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --evrik ^(talk) 03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Graywalls reported by User:Evrik (Result:_) --evrik ^(talk) 03:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik:, Consensus is not a vote. You casted a vote "keep" that doesn't provide any justification. Please detail how this article meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia article should be based primarily on published, reliable, secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. This article is almost entirely written from sources related to the program or its program sponsor (BSA). Given it's almost written based on program or BSA affiliated sources, there's really nothing to merge. Once re-directed, a re-direct section can always be changed and contents added to the target page as reliable sources are found. Graywalls (talk) 10:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. This right now is a driveby !vote with an AFK (no getsy-backsy). No basis or analysis or... words. Fingers crossed to hear back about rationale before day 7. Some of "next week" comes sooner than that. Could be Monday! Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, I posted a link to the larger discussion about your behavior. I'll make my thoughts known below. --evrik ^(talk) 18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is WP:PRIMARY sourced to COPE documents. All the sources are like that. It is currently non-notable. The redirect should have remained in place instead of being reverted. scope_creep^Talk 11:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched and could not find any reliable independent secondary sources covering this topic. Left guide (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the solid coverage identified below by Isaidnoway. Boys' Life won't count towards notability since it's a publication of the BSA (and thus not independent), but the rest look good. Left guide (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is a program with tens of thousands of certified instructors and millions of participants. Saying that it is "primary sourced" like saying that anything is written about by a human about humans is "primary sourced". And even so, information that meets even that overly restrictive standard certainly exists. And much of the "boring" informative enclyclopedic information for an program organization is only covered in depth and authoritatively by the organization that organizes/runs it. Contrary to the implications of the nomination, there is no wiki-requirement against this. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it shouldn't be covered briefly in another article but without meeting WP:GNG, it doesn't qualify for a stand alone article unless there's applicable WP:SNG. Article should be mostly based on secondary sources. There's an explanatory essay WP:Based upon endorsed within that. Given just how much of the article is dependent primary sourced, there's not much to merge. So, re-direct was a reasonable approach. "Lots of people use it" doesn't automatically make it pass GNG. Multiple editors have gone out and tried to find significant coverage in secondary sources and they're coming back with none. Graywalls (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to show the programmes notability, uses mainly primary sources and describes a minor and very BSA-specific aspect of ropes courses in an educational setting. Some of its contents could maybe be merged to Ropes course if secondary sources can be found. --jergen (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Graywalls (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and then redirect~~ to Boy_Scouts_of_America#Training. Per the discussion above, and per the few secondary sources that have been added to the article, COPE (aka C.O.P.E.) appears to be a well-known and well-loved program run by the Boy Scouts of America since the 1970s. However, at the moment, it is only mentioned in passing in a photo caption within the main Boy Scouts of America article. It would be great if a few sentences about COPE could be added there, as there isn't a lot of depth in the secondary sources found to date about the project itself. (That said, COPE is quite challenging to search for given its frequency as a word, so please do ping me if additional sources are found, or if the merge has been completed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common abbreviations and acronyms can usually be navigated in search by entering the full name which in this case is "Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience". Graywalls (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged one sentence and source to the target page, so think it's OK to just redirect to Boy Scouts of America#Training. Parvin Bishop fans will be happy to note that he is still mentioned in an article called Scouting in Missouri. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. This particular program is not the subject of substantial or standalone coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. If we were to merge, we'd prefer only non-primary sources to demonstrate why the program is noteworthy. There's not a whole lot, but merge what you will. The redirect that replaces this doesn't need the article history. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this is a notable program judging from the amount of coverage it has received from around the country: Kentucky, Oregon, New Jersey, Missouri, Florida, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Wisconsin, Tennessee (that's just a handful I found). The program has also been frequently featured in Boys Life Magazine, Volume 89, Issue 11, (Nov 1999): pp. 44-47; ProQuest 199871488 (just one example).

And apparently the program is not just for Scouts, some scouting camps open the program up to adults from surrounding communities; and also Police Explorers in Florida, company employees at H.B. Fuller, college students from the University School of Jackson and Reserve Officers' Training Corps in Florida. The COPE program has also been introduced into schools curriculums, and also adapted for juvenile offenders.

"The principals of Centennial and Wilde Lake high schools are expected to sign an agreement tomorrow with the Boy Scouts of America to introduce Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience, an outdoor program to the schools' curriculum". The Washington Post, March 13, 2008: p. T2
"Nonviolent juvenile offenders will be offered a specially tailored version of Scouting's COPE (challenging outdoor personal experience) aimed at boosting teamwork and self-esteem". St. Louis Post - Dispatch, July 26, 1999: p. 1

I think with a little work, it can be developed into an article that doesn't rely so heavily on primary sources. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:24, 30 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!} 07:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For those that aren't familiar, Boys' Life is the monthly magazine of the Boy Scouts of America (now known as Scout Life), so it doesn't qualify as an independent source. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what I already said when I changed my !vote above. There's still plenty of sufficient coverage shown in this discussion. Left guide (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've also struck my previous !vote and reworked the article to get rid of all the dodgy extraneous history that no one liked (which probably should have been deleted sooner). Of the sources provided by Isaidnoway, I liked the article about Project COPE being offered to private groups, although anyone who is intent on deleting will say that's inherently "promotional". Also helpful to know that Project COPE has been offered to nonviolent juvenile offenders and high schools. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was illustrating with the private group, etc. is how widespread the usage of the program is outside of the Boy Scouts using it, from private companies, to law-enforcement academies, the ROTC, college students, high schools and juvenile offender programs. There was also a lot of coverage about local businesses, Rotary clubs, the Girl Scouts, and other small entitles utilizing the COPE program. I also found some mentions of the program in academic journals, but nothing that would qualify as significant coverage. I also found a mention of it in a congressional report, again though, not significant coverage there either. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then re-direct and develop contents at target seems until or if stand alone article is justified sounds like an agreeable solution? You struck out re-direct in !vote but the text seems to support the redirect. Graywalls (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG and move to Project COPE. The article has essentially been completely rewritten, with many new secondary sources added. (To be clear, it really was in an abysmal state at the time of nomination, such that I previously !voted to redirect in agreement with the nominator.) However, since then, Isaidnoway pointed out that there is a ton of coverage about "Project COPE" since its inception in 1980, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest in newspapers nationwide, as well as relevance to other non-Boy Scout-affiliated groups in the wider public. (I had not been searching for "Project COPE" and hadn't realized how important the "Project" part of the name was; after having read lots of coverage, I would argue this article actually should be renamed.) Of the newspaper articles I have read so far, the most in-depth, descriptive ones that I found helpful in expanding the article were "Teens Battle Their Demons: Kids from different walks of life learn to trust, communicate", which appeared in the Ledger-Enquirer in Columbus, Georgia in 1987; the 2017 "COPE challenges Scouts' skills" in the St. Joseph News-Press; and "Learning the ropes in the outdoors: Project COPE offers challenge for area Scouts" in the Daily Hampshire Gazette in Massachusetts in 2005. And there are many other secondary sources cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I support the statements made by Cielquiparle. --evrik ^(talk) 18:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are nominators not required to at least look for sources? Moxy🍁 00:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moxy:, I did; as did several other editors. WP:BEFORE does not call for spending an entire day conducting an absolutely exhaustive search. Please assume good faith. Graywalls (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search shows multiple sources..... The question here really is Wikipedia:Does deletion help? Moxy🍁 00:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but WP:GOOGLEHITS is not what it is about. I had not been searching as "Project COPE" either, but the hits I was getting are not SIGCOV material. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY and per Cielquiparle. I wasn't going to !vote as I didn't think it was necessary. But despite that, I wanted to answer the BEFORE comment above. The nom. statement said that there were not reliable secondary sources, and clearly there was a BEFORE, because, on the face of it, that evaluation looked correct and this looked like a spinout of Boy Scouts of America. Take a look at all the books, articles and other hits and think how many of those are independent? How many are secondary sources? Graywalls boldly redirected the page and the page was restored by evrik. WP:BURDEN says, The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which is every bit as important as the advice in WP:BEFORE. Yet evrik did not even leave an edsum on the restore, much less deal with the issue raised with the sourcing. No talk, nothing, and their !vote on this AfD was also a simple "keep" vote with no comment whatsoever. BURDEN was not met. I have watched this AfD from the start, and Cielquiparle - with the help of sources found by Isaidnoway, and the point Isadnoway made about the larger scope - has found the notable core of this subject and rewritten and refactored the page. A page that looked like it should not have been spun out from its parent has now been shown to be independently notable. Deletion is not for cleanup, but sometimes that is the result. This is an excellent example of the process really helping. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sirfurboy:. I didn't write a full explanation because I'm supposed to be on a break. I did however want to put down a marker. Look at this discussion. This article does need improvement, but not deletion. Cielquiparle has done a good job of improving this article. --evrik ^(talk) 19:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assault on Gdańsk[edit]

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

This stub with no interwikis is effectively unreferenced for 10+ years, it only has a general source a bibliography (seems to be a 1906 Scandivanvian encyclopedia, with the entry not on this battle but a wider conflict, based on dates I see in the source). I failed to locate sources that mention this incident in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV, further, the Polish sources I see give the date of this incident as the night of May 22 to 23, not May 25. The sources I see do not also give the name of this small battle; and the article gives effectively six (assault or battle, and three name places - two for Gdańsk and one for Kiezmark. The stubby article ends with a mention of another battle two months later... it's a mess. I suggest redirecting this to Sieges of Danzig (disambig) and moving on. Alternative redirect target can be the wider conflict (Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629)) where this incident is mentioned. No need for a separate article unless sources can be found that allow us to show this can be expanded (and, well, named properly). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Poland, and Sweden. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bizarre case! The encyclopedia entry doesn't even mention most of what's in this article. Also, it describes the construction of a sconce in 1626, not a takeover of a fort. A blockade in may is mentioned, but no attempted assault. On a side note it is always amusing to be subjected to the unabashedly patriotic tone of old encyclopedias. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the original PROD nomination suggested this seems to be a garbled version of the Battle of Dirschau but there’s nothing to merge and a redirect doesn’t seem useful. Mccapra (talk) 09:58, 30 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 Slender Man. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video games based on Slender Man[edit]

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

Non-notable as per WP:GNG. In short, the article as it stands has no sourcing overviewing the treatment of the character across multiple video games. There are also only three titles with an article of the fourteen noted, with two being from the same creator, suggesting that the treatment of this character in gaming media is not notable either beyond its appearances in those works. I don't think, at least in its current state, that the article adds value that couldn't be said in a sentence: Fourteen games have been based on the character, including the notable games X, Y and Z. Potential WP:ATD for discussion I think are worth exploring are a merge to Slender Man in a new category or move to a more discrete list (i.e. "List of video games based on Slender Man"), although the latter still has some issues re. WP:NLIST. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Slender Man. There's basically zero RS coverage of the non-bluelinked games, don't include them. As for the NLIST angle, I don't think there's enough here. The closest any source gets to acknowledging the set of games as a whole is Game Rant's "The Slender Man mythos has resulted in a lot of indie games". Most other sources, even when discussing the 2023 release rumors, just reference it as a successor to Slender: The Arrival and Slender: The Eight Pages, not the previous body of work as a whole. ~ A412 ^talk! 10:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated to this AFD, how is Slender Man#References in media such a bad IPC section in a GA, between primary sources, references in extremely minor works, and sources to wikis of all things? ~ A412 ^talk! 10:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's probably worth a GAR. With all respect to the nominator and reviewer, that GAN was almost a decade ago, and the review was fairly forgiving about the unorthodox structure and sourcing for the article by today's standards. The current article is better, but does wax on quite a lot to repeat the same message: the ambiguity of Slender Man's mythos and depiction makes him appealing and highly adaptable for fans. Anyway, just an aside. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Slender Man, This article is entirely messy with incorrect grammar, terrible layout and none of the sources show any good reason about the group of Slender Man games. In addition, a list of video games that Slender Man has appeared in would be fine as a section to the Slender Man article then rather its own article list. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as the article is not mature enough to be in its own, also noting that it is not notable enough. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's surprising to me just how few of the video games listed in the timeline here were covered at all by reliable sources. I do think a list of Slenderman games has potential for an article (there's this VG247 source and quite a few of these games are reported upon), but this article is not looking good. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slender was admittedly very influential in the indie scene and gave rise to a large amount of imitators and clones, but the vast majority of them were small-time indie releases with no coverage. I agree if there were more sourcing that gave coverage to them, it'd be worth keeping, so thanks for finding that source. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Piramal[edit]

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

Non-notable, no WP:SIGCOV apart from her coming out of the closet as LGBT. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, India, and United Kingdom. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 07:35, 16 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!} 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG and is the Vice Chairperson of VIP Industries s India's largest luggage manufacturing company.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:10, 29 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) 06:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have sustained significant coverage, like this Forbes India (staff writer) bio, this in the Economic Times, this in the Business Standard, and so forth. Admittedly many Indian news sites are sometimes dubious, but this much coverage across lots of different major news sources still seems like enough for notability.— Moriwen (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Subject was on Forbes list and had coverage in sources like Bloomberg. Per Moriwen, much coverage in reliable news sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Adani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nominating this page for deletion again because it has remained overtly promotional and lacks merit of its own. In the last deletion discussion, some IDs might have been paid to submit a keep vote. Several of those accounts are either banned or inactive now. Notedolly2 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Notedolly2 (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am leaning keep for now, though I haven't yet dug deep into the huge amount of sourcing online, but a note to editors looking for sources, we need to ensure there is no inheriting as the son of billionaire magnate Gautam Adani.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 23 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) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eyeing on his achievements, Karan Adani has much coverage in news media like Business Standards, NDTV, Economic Times, Bloomberg, New York Times, on his personal life and career achievements. Passes WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Karan Adani's entire image is promotional because of his status as a wealthy heir of Adani Group. Any mention of him, even in reputable publications like the New York Times, tends to focus trivially on his connection to his father and the Group. Most coverage highlights things other than his achievements, which are not portrayed neutrally across any form of media. Notedolly2 (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero seek[edit]

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

While this may be notable (there are some passing references in my GScholar BEFORE), what we have is pure WP:OR - content tagged as unreferenced for over a decade, with no interwikis. It is pretty much orphaned (just two mainspace articles link here) and outside the lead is underlnked This is outside my field of expertise, so I cannot even comment whether what is written about here is related to the uses I see in GScholar. If someone improves this, great, otherwise, a redirect somewhere could be considered as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to stepper motor. One, the current state is completely unacceptable - not a single source, and has been so for more than a decade. This cannot remain in mainspace in this form. Two, a large part of the text is concerned with background already given at stepper motor and would be superfluous if the rest was embedded there; that would make a good subsection, not an article. If anyone wishes to add sourced content, it can be added there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is WP:OR, combining the concept of a zero seek interface command with the discussion of obtaining zero position in an actuator that uses open-loop control. I'm not convinced a redirect is a viable option, as I couldn't find any sources that would use the term to define the mechanism as described (it usually refers to relative motion rather than absolute position). Even if it is, neither the stepper motor nor a number of other related articles I looked at contain any information on the subject. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae FYI as this addresses your proposal. I have no opinion as I am not familiar with the topic beyond the basics. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I, really. If someone who actually understands the topic states that no reliable sources at all can be found, then that does point to delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some expertise in coming days, to help decide whether this article should be Redirected or Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 23 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) 06:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that on 17 March 2024 User:Лисан аль-Гаиб added three references to the article without commenting in this AfD. However, only the first reference appears to use the term in a way that could be possibly relevant to the article, and doesn't mention anything such as "hard end-stop" and "sensed end-stop", to which three paragraphs are devoted.

I expect there to be sufficient sources somewhere for this subject overall, but probably under a different name, perhaps "return-to-zero". If someone is interested in covering this topic, e probably should do that in a section of stepper motor. But in the current form the article is better gone per WP:TNT. NicolausPrime (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Castiglioni[edit]

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

Article appears to be mainly sources to self published sources, primary sources, blogs, or otherwise non-independent publications. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, Italy, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 23 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) 06:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant coverage in independent sources.— Moriwen (talk) 15:44, 30 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 00:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Stolli[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2016. No prose, but simply a list of credits which makes this akin to a WP:RESUME for an actor as opposed to encyclopedia entry. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, Theatre, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I believe that this article is worthy of being kept. It has 12 different footnotes and would seem to, therefore be relevant. Also, Anna Stolli is mentioned by name in the online footnoted references. --Howard352 (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are mainly to self published and primary sources. We require independent secondary references to prove notability per WP:GNG. The few secondary references that are there only mention the actress briefly in cast lists, and do not address Stolli's work as an actress in detail as required by WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:35, 24 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) 06:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find significant coverage in independent sources.— Moriwen (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many sources on the internet about her work, but none of them are independent sources unfortunately.Contributor892z (talk) 00:02, 31 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. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Cork[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Oslo. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. Geschichte (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Or, failing that, a selective merge/redirect to List of Irish ballads#Places, emigration and travel. As an WP:ATD. I understand the nomination in principle. And certainly, before my own WP:BEFORE and WP:VER checks and cleanup, there were more than a few entries which weren't discussed AT ALL/ANYWHERE. Not to mind being discussed as a group somewhere. As WP:NLIST would typically expect. However, with those random and unexplained (and seemingly quasi-promotional additions) removed, many/most of the list entries do appear to be covered - as a group - in reliable/verifiable sources. Including in Crowley's 2014 work Songs from the Beautiful City : the Cork Urban Ballads (ISBN 9781910179406) and in Healy's 1978 work Comic Songs of Cork and Kerry (ISBN 9780853424987). While additional clean-up is likely needed (including to better reflect the sources that do discuss the list members as a group), I'm inclined to lean towards a "keep". (Note: While I can't see the (now deleted) "List of songs about Oslo" title that is referred to in the nom, if it's equivalent to what's now at no:Liste_over_Oslosanger, then I'm not sure it's an entirely fair comparison. An (entirely?) unsupported 1400-point list, and a (semi) supported 30-point list, wouldn't seem directly comparable... ) Guliolopez (talk) 20:41, 8 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!} 06:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - is there a list of songs for every other county in Ireland? Why is Cork special? Actually, don't answer that! It's an indiscriminate list, no reason to keep. Spleodrach (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. RE "Why is Cork special?". It's not. There are also titles on List of songs about Dublin, List of songs about Clare, List of songs about Tipperary, List of songs about Louth and List of songs about Wicklow. If anything, deleting the Cork list (which, per my note above and NLIST, is supported by reliable/external/independent sources which cover the members as a group), while retaining the others, would possibly be indiscriminate/inconsistent. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST are two sides of the same WP:ATA coin...) Guliolopez (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:43, 22 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) 06:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a song directory. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would just say there is nothing so special about this topic that it needs to be kept despite deletions of similar articles. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 10:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Yala Batik[edit]

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

The company doesn't seem notable as there is no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The sources found so far only briefly mention it, and checking WP:BEFORE reveals the same pattern of passing mentions. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 19:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Thailand. GSS ^💬 19:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, including the online arms of Kom Chad Luek (2011)[9], Manager (2018)[10], Matichon (2022)[11], and a documentary broadcast on PPTV (2023)[12]. The last two are already cited in the article. There's room to discuss adjusting the article scope to cover the textile itself rather than the group (which is its only producer), but that's a matter for the article talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned, these are merely passing mentions and do not meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH. All three sources you mentioned rely solely on statements made by its founder, as indicated by the phrase "Piya said" throughout the articles. GSS ^💬 04:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are entirely about the group's textile making, and are certainly not mere passing mentions. A news source reporting information from subject is still independent if such information has been vetted and fact-checked by the reporter. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails notability guidelines; I can only find this that can pass but not enough to establish notability other than mentions. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 06:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am confident in the sources provided above by editor Paul. 180.183.224.201 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 22 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) 06:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing significant presented; merely passing mentions. Fails CORPDEPTH. BusterD (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Earl of Buchan#Present peer. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Thomas Alexander Erskine, 18th Earl of Buchan[edit]

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

Nobles aren't inherently notable: this one fails WP:BIO due to a lack of significant coverage. Burke's, Debrett's and other genealogical entries only show mentions with no in-depth coverage and are tertiary sources, and therefore cannot count towards WP:GNG, and the Telegraph article has no mention of the 18th Earl. Pilaz (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Scotland. Pilaz (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Earl of Buchan#Present peer per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Information and notability not sufficient for independent article Coldupnorth (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as Ingratis suggests above. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:ANYBIO but his basic information does belong in the article on the title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrrs0 (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with improvements. BD2412 T 03:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organization for the Reconstruction of the Communist Party of Greece[edit]

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

Only one source that isn't an internal newspaper, probably doesn't meet notability requirements besides getting around 1,000 votes each election. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Greece. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references that appeared in the corresponding Greek article. The article now includes references from several reliable sources, including the Greek version of VICE and some newspapers. Admittedly, some of the coverage relates more to the sectarian left as a whole, but it still counts as coverage of this group. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirements are more than met for a political party that exists in political life from 1985 and has taken part to almost all elections including the latest double parliamentary elections. The influence of its positions and analysis is much wider than its votes. I will add a number of references further to these included in the Greek article. It should be noted though that the Organisation is getting very much noticed not only from people who are close to its positions, but also from the friends of Russian and Chinese regimes who don't want the positions against these regimes to be heard. Nevertheless, even they refer to OAKKE as a source. See here https://books.google.gr/books?id=qGsyEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT75&lpg=PT75&dq=oakke+english+cosco&source=bl&ots=hGUbWXES0E&sig=ACfU3U1V9XJZPGLNndwS8vlNOIxgVzSN_A&hl=el&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGnez6wpyFAxUeQvEDHa_8Czs4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q&f=false where OAKKE is sited as Bibliography for its position against COSCO, as source, fifth from top, at a book that praises the Belt and Road Initiative published by Routledge in 2022 regarding COSCO and the port of Piraeus. EIRINI KOUTELOU (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could understand the deletion rationale if this party had contested one election and performed as stated; however, it has run in ten parliamentary elections and five European elections. Also the claim that the party has been "getting around 1,000 votes each election" is not really accurate – it has received over 2,000 votes in nine of the fifteen elections it has contested, and over 5,000 in a couple. Number 5 7 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor, but notable party of the Greek far left. Per WP:NEXIST and WP:HEY following added sources. There are so many reasons (electoral suppression, notions that elections=political significance etc) why electoral counts can be completely misleading to posit a lack of notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Plenty of political parties and organizations with a Wikipedia page have a similar electoral outreach, some have participated in fewer elections than OAKKE. Namely:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_Revolutionary_Party_(Greece)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_of_Internationalist_Communists_of_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist_Communist_Party_of_Greece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Greece_(Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist)

There are even pages for parties that have never participated in national elections on their own, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_Communist_Internationalists_of_Greece%E2%80%93Spartacus

Also, there are pages of defunct political parties, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Greece/Marxist%E2%80%93Leninist

The same practice consistently is applied to parties from all over the world, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_Maoist_parties_in_the_United_States

Singling out OAKKE from this well-established practice makes no sense.

OAKKE has had, and still has, a notable influence on Greek political affairs, far beyond its narrow electoral reach, and has triggered discussions and controversy on a national level.

One notable example is when in 2020 the Minister of Development and Investments of the Greek government tweeted an article by OAKKE concerning an industrial unit that announced that they are leaving the country: https://twitter.com/AdonisGeorgiadi/status/1316703449615151105

This caused OAKKE to be the number 1 trend on Greek Twitter (https://twitter.com/tsagko/status/1316717562722488339) and, in turn, several oppositional outlets, including the official newspaper of the second largest party, SYRIZA, posting comments and articles intended to denounce the original article, and the Minister for posting it:

https://www.avgi.gr/social/369264_termatise-diadidei-tis-theseis-tis-oakke

https://tvxs.gr/news/ellada/o-georgiadis-tweetare-oakke/

https://www.efsyn.gr/oikonomia/elliniki-oikonomia/264427_o-adonis-epikaleitai-tin-oakke-gia-tin-pitsos

OAKKE is frequently cited by Greek journalists, especially on the topics of industry and international affairs. A very recent example (published on March 27, 2024) is this article that discusses the exit of industries from Greece:

https://www.capital.gr/o-giorgos-kraloglou-grafei/3783787/kratismos-mexri-ekei-pou-den-pairnei/

Another one, posted on the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, cites OAKKE as a positive example of a leftist party denouncing the invasion: https://www.athensvoice.gr/epikairotita/politiki-oikonomia/748874/megalo-xevrakoma-toy-proodeytikoy-kosmoy-tis-horas/ 45.66.41.247 (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim bin Ismail[edit]

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

Non notable religious figure lack of WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:GNG. His importance appears to be largely restricted to Bengkalis Regency, with minimal recognition beyond this local area, let alone nationwide in Indonesia. While he may have some standing within the local Muslim scholar community, his broader significance is dubious. It's worth noting that the only source cited in the article, focuses on the 21 ulamas in Bengkalis regency rather than specifically highlighting him. Ckfasdf (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not much to say here but that I agree with your assessment.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:06, 31 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. Strength of argument prevailed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A.G[edit]

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

Promotion of non-notable company. Note previous deletion and salting of articles about company president and Hakawi News, which he also runs. No articles in ar-wiki about any of these entities. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good article, and after reviewing several sources, the discussion was closed and removed from deletion and installed in the public domain. GQO (talk) 6:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP and there are no sources that I can find that meet NCORP standards. The sourcing on the page is a terrible mess. Fully half of the sources claim to be an Arabic news site, but come up as "account suspended" so I strongly doubt the reliability of those, and they are unverifiable. In any case they would almost certainly be primary sources, as are all the remainder. This is a newly created page, but it is certainly not ready for mainspace. It was draftified once, but the creator promptly moved it back out of draftspace. I doubt an encyclopaedic page is possible at this time, and in view of the summary move out of draftspace, and previous deletion, I would say this should be deleted. The above !vote from a new user suggests they reviewed the sources, but perhaps they are unaware of the guidelines at WP:SIRS as to what is required of a source for NCORP pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request a review, I added some evidence and secondary sources

(Ahmed brens (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I am still seeing the same issues, including links that won't load. Which of these sources are secondary? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuradeen Abdu[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. The only sources are four that are all notices of the same appointment as registrar of a university. Tagged by others for wp:notability since December. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot see any claim of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: If being a member of the Chartered Accountant Institute was verifiable, there could be an option of draftfying. But in it's state now, it doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC. I can't see anything from #Before aside from being a registrar; which doesn't mean notability. May be notable. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACADEMIC & WP:GNG. Dejaqo (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable academic. His fellowships and position in the university cannot act as an SNG neither does he meet the general notability criteria as there are no in-depth, independent significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans 06:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nilo Aguillar Effori[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable Brazilian sports attorney. Purely promo vanity page. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Nirva20 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Law, and Brazil. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also looked for sources: could find none talking about him. References on article were links to articles that he wrote. He does appear as an interviewee about some formula 1 things here, but it doesn't cover him significantly. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a self-promo. Anwegmann (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: classic vanity page. Please ping if you find sources to contrary. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors believe article subject meets WP:NACTOR so there is a consensus to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nurbani Yusuf[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, as far as I can tell. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Women, Law, and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR imv, although the pages about 3/4 of notable films in which she played lead/significant roles are not blue (yet). She also probably meets GNG for her career as lawyer/politician (plenty of books in Indonesian and some in English mention her).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What did you find during your WP:BEFORE, Allan Nonymous? What is your assessment of the sources in this article? A source analysis table would be helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I looked at a few of the sources here. I was unable to review all the articles here, as some of them are in Indonesian, but here are the ones I was able to find.

(Not good at tables so this will have to do.)

KOMPASS: Returns a dead link to no article.

What and Who: Not really a notable source, just a big list.

Harian AB, Selecta: Was unable to find the notability of these magazines, nor the sources themselves, so I felt it was insufficient.

Dynamics of Dissent (English Book): This source only mentions her in passing, once, as far as I can tell, which is insufficient coverage.

Jakarta Magazine: Does seem to be notable, but again, was unable to find the source.

detikx: No mention of her name. Allan Nonymous (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the sources in the article, there is also this, this, this and this which should be enough for GNG. Probably also passes NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [13]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [14] [15]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Focus more on the notability of the article subject and less on the identity of the article creator. Also, a thorough BEFORE is expected prior to nomination. Unless there is objectionable content or copyright violations, speed should never be an important factor in the deletion process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Mariani[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. No real sources beyond a wordpress blog. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why are the other sources cited in the article—pa Siapa Orang Film Indonesia 1926–1978 [What and Who: Film Figures in Indonesia, 1926–1978] (Sinematek Indonesia, 1979), the national Indonesian newspaper Kompas, and the Indonesian film magazine Film Varia—not real sources? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously meets WP:NACTOR....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources already in the article are "real sources" and establish notability. Jfire (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article was created by a well-known sockpuppeteer, the individual in question meets the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR and is genuinely notable. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator tried every type of deletion (CSD, BLPPROD, AFD) to get this article deleted and I don't really understand why. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It appears that the nominator is actively targeting articles created by Asphonixm, a known sockmaster, due to their history of creating non-notable Indonesian biography articles. However, some of the articles created by Asphonixm actually feature notable individuals. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I apologize if I was a bit hasty to characterize sources here, but the sockmaster here has a habit of using rather poor sources or misinterpreting source. As he has created a lot of articles, I was working with speed in mind here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because he isn't trying to nominate a deletion of page based on their notability and rules. He is trying to delete and revert all of the article/edit that was done by sockpuppet user Asphonixm even though some of the article has notability and was created before the user was blocked. Like what he did here by put a notability tag [16]] on Olga Syahputra, the legendary comedian of Indonesia. And also here when he nominated a deletion for Moesa Pancho due to WP:GNG even though the article has another reliable sources apart from Tempo itself [17], [18]. There is also no indication that he did WP:BEFORE before doing the deletion activity [19]. He always focused on creating a deletion page about Indonesian article even though he himself did not understand the subject or even know the notability of the sources used in the articles [20] [21]. Based on these two facts, no indication regarding WP:BEFORE and lack of capability to understand the notability of sources used in the article due to language limitations, all of his deletion nominations should be invalid. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - If this article was targeted for deletion because of the misdeeds of its creator, that is the wrong procedure because a deletion investigation must be focused on the subject of the article. (See also WP:EASYTARGET.) Per a Google Books search, the actress is easily found in many histories of Indonesian cinema, and a few of those were already cited before the nominator's dishonest claim about the sources. The article simply needs to be cleaned up, and could probably be expanded by someone with the skills to investigate old Indonesian books and newspapers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can target deletion of article due misdeed of its creator provided it qualify for WP:G5. However it's not the case for this article. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right and I'm not arguing, but WP:G5 is a speedy delete process, while here we have a full AfD discussion in which a lot more is required from the nominator, including a fully researched analysis of whether the subject is notable. If this nominator is indulging in this process regularly, that might call for an investigation. See the nominator's 31 March admission about "speed" above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The discussion on this page, such as from Doomdsdayer520, demonstrates that there are real sources that do provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NACTOR. Has had leading roles in film or TV.Maxcreator (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Working with speed in mind" is bad practice. Work with thoughtfulness and care. Toughpigs (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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