Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      May 26 (Sun)      May 25 (Sat)      May 24 (Fri)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Teresa (Barbie)

Teresa (Barbie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable children's toy and fictional character. Article does not establish notability. Of the seven references present on the article at the moment:

• Ref 1 is a YouTube video on a fan channel, probably a copyright violation, and is a primary source (it's a release trailer)
• Refs 2 and 3 are primarily about other characters
• Ref 4 is a picture of Barbie merchandise (primary source) hosted on Flickr
• Refs 5, 6 and 7 are primary (barbie.com)

In my opinion, the article's prose makes no attempt to establish the notability of this character, and the references provided do not establish notability either. Adam Black ^{t • c} 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Adam Black ^{t • c} 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The sources included in the article are all pretty much not valid for establishing notability, being primary or unreliable sources. But, searches are actually bringing up some commentary on the character, particularly on the depictions of her ethnicity. While a lot of it is fairly brief, this book has a whole page on the topic, and is the best I've found. If not kept, it should at least be redirected to List of Barbie's friends and family#Female best friends, and have some sources actually added there. Rorshacma (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The sources found after my initial comment in addition to the one I already mentioned above seem to push Teresa into passing the WP:GNG. The article should be updated to replace the primary sourced "plot" content with the sourced analysis, but it does not appear that Deletion would be appropriate here. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Barbie's friends and family#Female best friends, most non-notable characters get redirected, which is optimal for this one as well. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Rorshacma provided a good book reference, and there is plenty more:
  1. Another book gives about 2.5 pages to Teresa here in Barbie Culture by Mary F. Rogers.
  2. Sloan gives some discussion of her creation, lack of good marketing, and devolution to just another Barbie in Women's Roles in Latin America and the Carribbean, which was cited by Taber, Clover, and Sanford in "Performing gender in a Barbie Expo: White passivity, exotic otherness, and tradition in a fashionista bow".
  3. Goldman also discusses the poor marketing and whitening of her in "La Princesa Plástica: Hegemonic and Oppositional Representations of Latinidad in Hispanic Barbie" (from the book From Bananas to Buttocks: The Latina Body in Popular Film and Culture, and then goes on to liken Teresa to Argentina and Barbie to the United States as they are depicted in a short film using the dolls as characters.
  4. Aguiló-Pérez also discusses Teresa in "Accessing Barbie Conversations about Class and Race", chapter four of An American Icon in Puerto Rico: Barbie, Girlhood, and Colonialism at Play identifying her as a common favorite amongst those that played with her and identified with her darker hair and skin, but also criticizing her relegation to the sidelines as Barbie is spotlighted in both animated releases and marketing commercials.

The above doi links are all accessible via the WP:Library access. All that said, enough sources WP:NEXIST to establish her notability. The article can obviously be improved to incorporate some of this, but it does not need deletion. -2pou (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am convinced by the sources found by Rorshacma (at least a page of The Marketing of Toys) and 2pou (several pages in Barbie Culture). Barbie is important; people write about it. Toughpigs (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin English

Justin English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This BLP appears to be of a reasonably successful but otherwise ordinary early-career professor. I can't find evidence of any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor biographical coverage for WP:GNG. Citations are decent (?) but I don't think it's enough for NACADEMIC#1. Note that the "award" listed -- "the NIH Director's New Innovation Award" -- does not satisfy NACADEMIC#2 since it's actually just grant funding, not a personal honor. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, New York, North Carolina, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nomination. He seems to have had a decent career so far and maybe will meet the notability criteria in the future, but I have to agree this article doesn't seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC at present. I noticed, though, that it was a successful AFC submission. It would be good to have the opinion of the editors involved in that process so pinging Eastmain (talk · contribs) and Qcne (talk · contribs). Adam Black ^{t • c} 00:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ping @Adam Black GB. I felt it was borderline passing WP:NACADEMIC, and I guess I'm an inclusionist instead of an exclusionist when it comes to borderline articles. Happy to defer to consensus in this case. Qcne (talk) 08:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your work at AfC. For the record I do think it made sense to accept at AfC -- the article writing is solid and it's perfectly plausible that someone at this career stage could be notable (unlike a lot of AfC submissions about grad students/postdocs). I think AfC should lean inclusionist at the borderline. But when I looked at it with my NPP hat on, I felt like it merited a deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I added the primary sources tag during New Page Review when I didn't have time to review the citation record but hesitated to bring to AfD since it had just gone through AfC successfully. It is troublesome that so many sources in the piece are to his own writing/lab, including those purporting to evaluate his impact according to the NACADEMIC criteria. Upon further review this evening I agree with the nominator that there is not enough to support notability under GNG, NBIO or NACADEMIC at this time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While quite impressive for an early career researcher, his citations are well below what would be expected of a notable academic in his subfield. 59/80 of his coauthors -- including students and techs, not only professors -- have a higher h-index than he has (8), and for NPROF C1 we would want to see someone who was in at least the top 20% of just the professors/senior researchers. I'm surprised this got through AfC. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't disagree with your conclusion, but that's a...strange rationale. At least, it's oriented towards very hierarchical disciplines. Why should someone have to build a big pool of lesser researchers around themselves in order to become notable? The goal should be to make one's own research as good as possible by working with other people who are as good as possible, and to push one's students to be as successful as possible, preferably even better than oneself. Instead, your criterion would judge people to be most successful when they surround themselves by lesser researchers, when their student coauthors are all failures who never go on to anything, so that those people stand out the most among them. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant in this specific case I would have needed to see him in the top 20% of his professor coauthors for me to reconsider him for C1. In subfields like his where papers can have many collaborators from diverse career stages and institutions, and for subjects with a clearly low citation profile, it's easier to justify thresholding at particular quintiles. If he had a more edge-case citation profile and was publishing exclusively with coauthors from one or two institutions I would of course incorporate more factors into my evaluation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:Too soon. Citations not really yet adequate in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. As usual, I am unimpressed by middle author (in a field where that matters) on highly coauthored and only moderately-cited papers. Looks WP:TOOSOON at best for NPROF. Little other sign of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The comments above citing WP:Too soon are spot on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlassian (talk • contribs) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Too soon not notable at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans

The Vandals / Assorted Jelly Beans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable split record. toweli (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and California. toweli (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays: found no reliable coverage in digital archives. Assorted Jelly Beans is a redirect to a band member's article which doesn't even mention this split, and the target I chose appears to be the only place which does. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Vandals discography#Extended plays. I couldn't find reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keepa Mewett

Keepa Mewett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep There's this and a fair few other bits on his rugby career, and then a fair bit also on his post-rugby career. Worth a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alandré van Rooyen

Alandré van Rooyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Absolutely heaps of coverage, but the majority of it is transactional, a bit of a surprise given he played in the English top league, but heyho. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep - Found this should pass WP:BASIC

[1], [2], [3], [4]. Otbest (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: 1 is a primary source. 2 is a duplicate of 4, which is a routine transactional announcement with two sentences of coverage. 3 is a routine transactional announcement with two sentences of coverage. Even BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthys Basson

Matthys Basson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions, both in English and Japanese (search マティウス ・バッソン). JTtheOG (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just bios, transactional and team announcements in English and Japanese media, so not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, couldn't find in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Stander

Joshua Stander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found a few pieces with a handful of mentions (1, 2, 3), but nothing significant. There are also trivial mentions in Japanese, which you can see by searching ジョシュア・スタンダー. JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think there's enough in English language and Japanese coverage for a weak keep here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sourcing is trivial and/or routine transactional reports, nothing independent and in depth. JoelleJay (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Bengali sentiment

Anti-Bengali sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The whole article is WP:OR and is making connection of any unfavorable event that occurred in or around West Bengal as discrimination against its people. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:POVFORK of various articles. Orientls (talk) 12:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too much WP:SYNTH and it is not a notable topic on its own. Agletarang (talk) 18:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There are numerous sources in the article documenting the discriminations against Bengalis which makes this topic notable per WP:GNG. This article is even selected as one of the Level 5 Vital articles in English Wikipedia. Shubhrojeet (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE - such existence will incite communal hatred in Wikipedia. This kind of page shouldn't be allowed in Wikipedia. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Discrimination happens against almost every social group but the topic has to be notable as well. Lorstaking (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and all unfavorable events that occurred in or around West Bengal as discrimination against its people.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While this might be a clear Delete, I'm seeing too much opinion and not enough policy-based arguments about this article. Let's lower the temperature and consider how this article does or doesn't abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just because discrimination happens against other groups isn't a good reason to delete this particular article. I also note that this AFD has been available for closure for other 13 hours and no admin has opted to close it which made me consider whether it needed more substantive discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I did a google scholar search for "anti-bengali discrimination india" and found a decent number of sources that seem to contribute to WP:GNG. I don't see a good reason to delete at this time.CarringtonMist (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although there is an issue with original research, there is also a decent amount of directly-related sources. Definitely needs to be cleaned up though. Perhaps since the page has been renamed, expand its coverage to include anti-Bengali sentiment in Pakistan/Myanmar. 70.176.221.156 (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

70.176.221.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Not denying that there is discrimination. It is just that the topic is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not need a standalone article for this WP:SYNTH. Most of the content is only about the language-related issues and religiously motivated discrimination where the victim happened to be Bengali speaker. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have just done a massive (~1hr) edit on the article, stripping it of extensive OR/SYNTH and a lottttt of off-topic/unencyclopedic content. Despite the massive removals, I feel a pretty solid article remains, one that I've hopefully stripped down to the most relevant content (and thoroughly marked remaining statements in need of sources). I'm a bit scared to venture into picking/defining RSes myself, as an overly cautious editor, but given the statements from others above that more sources DO seem to exist, I hope I've paved the way for this to be an easier "keep and improve" Chiselinccc (talk) 08:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Live

Amazon Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCORP on its own, but I believe this could be merged into Amazon Inc. as a subsidiary. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 12:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Amazon Inc.: per nom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Websites, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' it's better to merge to Amazon Prime. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked for spamming. MER-C 09:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @FightBrightTigh: Keeping and merging are mutually exclusive outcomes. Which one are you suggesting is best? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge FightBrightTigh (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. It's not possible to Merge this article with Amazon Inc. as this page is a Redirect. This should show up for you as a different colored font. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Only 2 sources 1 is primary, so not worth it's own page. It's better for this page to be merged into Amazon Inc. EternalNub (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Amazon Inc. per nom, doesn't pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Abdullayeva

Leyla Abdullayeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• NO GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. --Correspondentman (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Azerbaijan, and France. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The other language Wikipedias seem to have a better sourced version of this, with around ten separate sources, however I'm not sure about their quality.

=== Russian language ===

• [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

=== Azerbaijani Wikipedia ===

• [10]

Testeraccount101 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, because AFD is made by sock of the banned user. User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). Here is the discussion. He (User:Elshadiman) has been banned on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. You might check the archive through this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elshadiman/Archive. On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya, User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman, which has only 36 edits, all in AFD. Sock accounts cannot create AFDs. — Toghrul R (t) 06:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Ackerman

Justin Ackerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feli Ferraro

Feli Ferraro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to passing mentions and professional profiles in non-independent sources. The listed song credits are misleading, as she is not the primary recording artist of any of them; professional songwriters do not typically receive the same level of coverage for their work, and should not be presumed notable on the basis of having collaborated on notable works in the absence of actual RS coverage about their influence on the work. Searching online did not turn up any coverage better than what is already cited. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to go with delete. I don't find any reasonable sources beyond what is here, and since the editor who created this works on and creates many articles for modern music I have to assume that what is here is the best that can be found. What I see in the sources here are mainly name checks. The only significant piece about her is on a site that I presume is that of her agents (Arthouse Entertainment). The "Genius" site that includes her in "best" lists is crowd-sourced and therefore not a reliable source. Lamona (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoërskool Noordheuwel

Hoërskool Noordheuwel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted at AfD in October 2023; insufficient improvement in sourcing to meet N:SCHOOL. Sources are to hyperlocal news sources that read like user-submitted or sponsored copy ("Die kersie op die koek: Hoërskool Noordheuwel is die TOP AKADEMIESE SKOOL in Gauteng-Wes en bekleë ook die nr 5 posisie in Gauteng waarop ons baie trots is"... "The icing on the cake: Noordheuwel High School is the TOP ACADEMIC SCHOOL in Gauteng West and also holds the No. 5 position in Gauteng, which we are very proud of.") or a news site comprising regional high school sport news, not clearing the bar for NORG or GNG. A BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraam-e-Junoon

Ehraam-e-Junoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage in RS. ROTM coverage like this, and namechecks like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A WP:NTV series that meets WP:GNG, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
  • Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. There's many citations available on search to improve the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to 7th_Sky_Entertainment#Current_programmes -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Mitchell (wrestler)

Ryan Mitchell (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable pro wrestler, doesn't meet WP:GNG. 1, he worked on independent promotions. Not enough coverage from third party sources about him for an article. 2, the article is half hoax. He never won titles on OVW, TNA Wrestling, JCW or PWG. Looking his Cagematch profile, just won a few titles. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like, months ago, an IP included Josh Hardy and Ryan Mitchell on several championships as champions, which is fake. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trentham Football Netball Club

Trentham Football Netball Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found.  // Timothy :: talk  17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, here is a link to the official history book of the Australian Rules football club, Trentham Football / Netball Club in Victoria, Australia - https://trenthamsaintsfnc.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/TDFNC-The-First-100-Years-by-Vin-Cowell.pdf which should provide you with a good source for you add in any other citations for verification, addressing your concerns. Thanks, Justin. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources are mainly local, same with a google news search, needs wider coverage as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LibStar: What's wrong with the book-length source on its history listed above? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell it is self-published by a relative of a former player? Not sure if it qualifies for meeting the WP:ORG. Let'srun (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Maryborough Castlemaine District Football Netball League. I agree with LetsRun’s characterization of the earlier source brought up. It lacks independence and even if it was independent, it wouldn’t be enough on its own (plus the WP:ROUTINE local coverage currently in the article). Frank Anchor 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A decent article here on "Trentham's Glory Years". BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for posting a link to that great article about the Trentham FNC to help try and maintain some of the club's valuable football and netball history. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Jankovski

Vladimir Jankovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are a bios on a nomination pages, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent sources. BEFORE found nothing meeting SIGCOV with indepth coverage.  // Timothy :: talk  17:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The Macedonian article has two news items about him and confirms he won an award; the news appears to be in RS, I think this passes notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's also a review of his book here [13]. The News link in the nomination header here brings up a few other articles about him in Macedonian media, and he's mentioned as a translator here [14] in a Maltese newspaper, showing some international reach. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Winning/being nominated for a major award here meets WP:ANYBIO. I am more certain of SIGCOV especially when translators usually aren't given more details like a normal full-time writer. However, if the article was nomiated for such an award, then, there should be reviews of works somewhere. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taichi Takahashi

Taichi Takahashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Japanese rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. This was the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I found, containing a handful of sentences of coverage, but no in-depth or sustained coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep From the interview provided, his Japanese Wikipedia, and googling his Japanese name (高橋汰地) there looks to be enough here for WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the six sources in his Japanese article have any WP:SIGCOV. Feel free to present any new sources you found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Couple of lengthly profiles here and here. this, this and this all found just by googling his name. A more in depth search (perhaps by someone with better access to Japanese sourcing than myself as a lot is restricted here) will likely find more Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for presenting these. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The first one is from the JRFU (see the copyright at the bottom) and the second is by the same affiliate. The others just seem like routine reporting of press conferences without much independent contribution, especially the last one. JoelleJay (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sourcing seems restricted to routine coverage of press announcements and interviews rather than independent in-depth profiles. Not convinced the subject meets SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and JoelleJay lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harish Kumar Gupta

Harish Kumar Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Resume vanity BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Appears to be mainly sourced from a LinkedIn resume and government bio page (both fail WP:IS, WP:RS), with other refs being routine mill news and name mentions. Government service awards are routine, not meeting WP:ANYBIO.  // Timothy :: talk  15:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Page reads as resume for job application. Things he did or delegated as correctional officer and none of it is a significant achievement and widely known to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:BIO and notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Head of the police of Andhra Pradesh, a major state of India. For those used to state police forces having a limited role, state police forces in India are huge and provide all policing in the state. Clearly notable and sources satisfy WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice

Arch of Dignity, Equality, and Justice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no independent sources to help this pass WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Sources listed are either to SJSU, which houses the arch, or to writings of the artist who created it. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are also from SJSU or authored by artist Judy Baca. It gets trivial coverage in a few places (passing reference in a local paper and local visitor guide) but no significant, secondary coverage in independent, reliable sources. One AtD would be to merge any encyclopedic content to Paseo de César Chávez. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree that it's surprising that aren't more independent sources featuring the Arch. That being said, I was able to find a few independent sources discussing the Arch, namely:

- A publication from from the San Jose Museum of Art - here

- An article from the Social and Public Art Resource Center - here

- A feature on GPSmyCity - here

- An article by Mosaic Atlas - here (Admittedly, Mosaic Atlas is partnered with SJSU, but ostensibly they're an independent source)

Personally, I think the article should be kept, but adding the More citations needed template and incorporating the above sources. SammySpartan (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the SPARC piece during my search, but Judy Baca is a [of SPARC] and the author of the piece. It can't be independent. The GPSMyCity piece appears to be copied from an official SJSU page here. And the final piece published by SJSU cannot be independent when establishing notability of a structure at SJSU. With only the SJMoA piece you found, we still need more sources to get this over GNG or NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per new sources above, and an artwork is usually kept if the housing institution, gallery, museum, etc., has catalogued it in some form. This is a specific artwork, not a building, and already has enough to pass GNG related to Wikipedia visual arts pages. As for its value to Wikipedia, please note the navboxes which now include it and the benefit of including this artwork within them (the page and this discussion inspired the creation of the ((Dolores Huerta)) navbox, thanks Sammy Spartan and Dclemens1971). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the artwork is one of the few highly visible landmarks of the SJ public art scene. It has sources on its artistry, historical relevance to Cesar Chavez, and local relevance to San Jose. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Cristiano Tomás I agree with you that it is a highly visible landmark. @Randy Kryn I'd also like to find a way to keep it. But can you show any reliable, secondary, significant coverage that is independent of San Jose State University, the artist Judy Baca who made it, or of the organization she founded? Those sources are what I can't turn up, and that's what is required under policy for GNG and SNGs related to art/buildings. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a building, so building notability wouldn't apply. Visual art pages are usually accepted as established with sources from the holding museum or organization, in this case the University mentions would apply toward notability. And wouldn't the University mentions be secondary (primary would be the work itself)? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no SNG for artworks, so it has to pass GNG, which requires independent sources. Sources from the entity that commissioned the artwork (SJSU) and the artist who made it (Baca) cannot be independent from it for purposes of assessing notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• No SNG for artworks? I thought there was and, if not, there should be as sourcing to a museum or gallery (which the University would qualify as) has been the standard and used as the sole source on maybe thousands of pages. Better call in (they may be tired of me calling upon their knowledge) Another Believer and Johnbod. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that it would seem that the new sources added above, such as this from the San Jose Museum of Art, would qualify. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with new sources as previously stated. Additionally, speaking purely from an art history perspective here, Baca is clearly notable enough and this work is clearly prominent enough to merit inclusion.--19h00s (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion as even though there is a consensus to Keep and no support for deletion. But there is a valid concern about sourcing so hopefully more can be located over the next few days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Lewis (figure skater)

Chloe Lewis (figure skater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. I withdraw this nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Oregon. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 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!} 23:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a useful short article on a skater who was successful in international junior skating tournaments; her best result was the Youth Olympics. Articles such as Figure skating at the Winter Youth Olympics work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles. Deleting articles such as this one, through an over-zealous application of rules to borderline cases such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as mentioned below.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't pass wp:gng Big Money Threepwood (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NSKATE and fails WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 1, consensus was to relist for further discussion. I will strike the sockpuppetry above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Previous votes failed to assess the article's sourcing. At the time of the nomination, it was sufficient to pass WP:GNG—namely this profile in the Oregonian and this briefer one in the Colorado Gazette. The nominator has also since said I felt my original nomination was flawed, given that GNG tops an SNG. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am unable to close this as a "speedy keep" because there are additional "delete" votes, but I would endorse this being closed as "keep". Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes GNG per the references provided by Hamelton. These in-depth profiles offer SIGCOV of the subject. Frank Anchor 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There's WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS and therefore the subject passes WP:GNG. TarnishedPath^talk 06:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radiowv

Radiowv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All references are just passing mentions, not enough in-depth coverage for an article. Clearfrienda ^💬 21:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources of the article provide the details on the founding, history, reach, cultural impact, and customers of the entity, which seems quite deep. The Tennessean, for example, describes the entity as a «tastemaker» within its musical genre. Anyway, the article sources include, so far:
  • CNN
  • American Songwriter
  • Variety
  • The Atlantic
  • The Tennessean
  • Billboard
  • Pulitzer-award winning SFGate
  • News Corp Australia
  Have we ever deleted an article with such blue-chip sourcing from multiple years and internationally coming from multiple continents spanning the globe? XavierItzm (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  None of these references offer in-depth coverage which is essential to meet WP:GNG. The Tennessean article is about Oliver Anthony's new song, not the YouTube channel, and only briefly mentions it. All the other sources are the same: brief mentions in articles mainly about the song. This does not meet WP:SIGCOV. Some of them don't mention the channel at all. I'd recommend merging it into another article because some information is useful but it doesn't warrant its own Wikipedia article.

  Also, XavierItzm, if you have "a vested interest in the article," (e.g. you created the article) make sure to disclose it before participating in the AfD discussion (see WP:AVOIDCOI).

  Clearfrienda ^💬 02:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated an absolute falsehood: «Some of them don't mention the channel at all» [the references] and I would kindly ask that you retract that falsehood. On the contrary, each and every single source in the article cites Radiovw by name, as can be readily checked in the Refs section of the article.

Yeah, I created that article and I’ve created numerous articles across various Wikipedia projects totaling about 21,000 edits since 2014, including 54 articles in the en.wikipedia alone. As an amateur editor, this is the first time anyone asks if I have a COI, so I guess this is sort of like a new badge of honour for me? As a retired guy since a long time ago, I have zero COIs on the Wikipedia project. XavierItzm (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles don't mention the subject. This The Atlantic article does not mention the channel, for example. What's actually important is the lack of significant coverage of the channel. The majority of mentions in references are trivial — the references aren't "about" the channel, they just mention it briefly. For an article to meet GNG, it has to have significant coverage. Significant coverage is not trivial mentions (see WP:TRIVIAL). Some references are slightly more than trivial, but are still just brief mentions.

You do have a conflict of interest at this AfD discussion because you clearly have a "vested interest in the article" (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute). That's not a problem but it's generally policy to disclose it so you don't mislead other participants.

Snarky remarks aren't helping.

Clearfrienda ^💬 03:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic article^[1] is used to establish the styling of the script for Radiowv (which was the subject of discussion on the TP). And yes, the Atlantic article does use the style RadioWV in a caption and it is a proper use of a source for a debated detail of the article (to wit, the sources use three different stylings: Radiowv, RadioWV and radiowv). The one source you are arguing about and which mistakenly you cited using plural (as if you had found multiple instances of that of which you actually found none) does mention Radiowv in writing!, thus refuting your false assertion: «Some articles don't mention the subject»

Your lack of contrition and refusal to acknowledge your stated 100% false assertion is troubling and the closer should take note.XavierItzm (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your point is. A credit in a photo caption does not help to prove notability. It doesn't matter if a reference doesn't mention the subject if you're using it to back up information. We're talking about notability here, though. For an article to meet the general notability guidelines it needs significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. I don't see how Radiowv meets this criteria with no in-depth coverage anywhere and a few brief, often completely trivial, mentions in other articles. Do you have any examples of references that help meet this criteria? Because right now other participants see no evidence of actually proving notability and instead just see useless arguing. I'd be happy to help if you need it.

Please stop with the uncivil attacks and start actually contributing to the discussion.

Clearfrienda ^💬 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article now includes two WP:INDEPTH refs which are 100% exclusively only about Radiowv.^[2][3] XavierItzm (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  These latter is a regional paper. See WP:AUD. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is no consensus. By now, I've closed thousands of AFDs and while article creators sometimes self-identify, I don't think it is mandatrory or a COI. If anyone who created or edited an article has a COI then so does the editor seeking its deletion. And don't accuse another editor of being "snarky" when you yourself or making irrelevant accusations. Anyone is free to participate in an AFD except sockpuppets and a few editors with editing restrictions so let's focus on arguments and not personalities.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Internet, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see any coverage that is unrelated to Oliver Anthony, but I'm also not certain that such coverage is necessary. The "Wide Open Country" reference from XavierItzm, while clearly motivated by Anthony, substantially discusses other aspects of radiowv. As Oliver Anthony isn't a reasonable redirect target, my vote is to keep. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The cited WOC above is only one source, but [15] is another, which according to WP:MULTSOURCES should be enough to establish notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've checked citation [2] again, and it indeed doesn't go in-depth, despite its title. However, I believe the actually significant article I've provided and all the trivial mentions add up to provide this outlet some borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nothing is about this channel that I can find, it's all about the gentleman and his song. Trivial mentions don't help notability. Even with what's now in the article, it's all a one-liner explaining what the channel is, in articles about other things. There is nothing extensive in any sourcing about this channel. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources cited are adequate to support the notability of the subject. The fact that a news source is "regional" has no bearing on its reliability; most news sources are regional, and countless notable topics fail to achieve national coverage. A "passing" or "trivial" mention isn't one that discusses one topic in relation to another; it's literally a drive-by name-dropping, and that's not what these sources provide. The article may be in need of cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. P Aculeius (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:AUD says that regional coverage cannot be used for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you should reread the section you linked me to, which says the opposite. P Aculeius (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WVR is a weekly legal publication. The biggest WV newspaper would probably be the Charleston Gazette Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your statement was that "regional coverage cannot be used for notability", and that's explicitly contradicted by the linked section of the notability guideline. Although it gives "the largest newspaper in a state" as an example, that can hardly be regarded as a comprehensive list of acceptable regional sources (by that logic, in Pennsylvania you would have to choose between news from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh; in Ohio, between Columbus, Cincinnati, or Cleveland, etc.). The Herald-Dispatch has a circulation comparable to that of the Charleston Gazette, and there are other papers of significance in the region—just in West Virginia, Parkersburg and Morgantown come to mind as having important papers.

  While the West Virginia Record is indeed a legal paper, it's neither a small-town paper or one of "limited interest and circulation", as described by the policy, which gives as an example "a newsletter exclusively for people with a very unusual job". That hardly describes a legal newspaper covering the entire state—it's not something that could be fairly described as a "newsletter", nor is its readership exclusive to "people with a very unusual job"; I don't think that describes the legal profession, or the business community, very well—although I would certainly prefer coverage in papers such as the Charleston Gazette or Herald-Dispatch.

  The article also cites a number of national and regional sources beyond West Virginia: The Tennessean, The Atlantic, CNN. While their coverage may focus on the specifics of a legal case or individual singers, they provide a bit more than mere "trivial coverage" or "passing mentions" of the channel. Taken together with the other materials, I conclude that the topic meets the minimum threshold for notability, and thus the article should be kept. P Aculeius (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Can someone give me a link to the WP:THREE here? My perusal of what's currently on the article largely looks like someone trying to piggy-back coverage centered around one of their artists rather than significant coverage on the subject itself. Sergecross73 msg me 11:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure thing: Rolling Stone, in an article authored by blue-linked David Browne (journalist) sez: «RadioWV, a YouTube channel devoted to off-the-grid country and folk singers in and around Appalachia [...] Around five years ago, Riffe co-founded RadioWV, the YouTube channel devoted to the type of woodsy, unadorned country songs [...] When Riffe heard [...he...] wanted to film Anthony singing for RadioWV [...] 85 million views [on RadioWV], compared with the roughly 100,000 maximum of most RadioWV posts [...] RadioWV alumni, like Nolan Taylor, who recently signed a deal with Atlantic Records». Now, the problem with this Rolling Stone article is that it only mentions RadioWV in passing 5 times, telling us what it is, what it does, its geographic area of sourcing, its date of founding, its founder, its musical style, how it came across its biggest star, how many people watch its average videos and some of its greatest hits, some of its "alumni", and which labels some of the RadioWV alumni have signed up with.^[1] So definitively this article is not the best sourcing. For that you would have to look at the two articles cited above, which are both WP:INDEPTH articles written solely and exclusively about RadioWV: ^[2][3]. Those would be your WP:THREE, leaving out, of course, CNN, American Songwriter, Billboard, SFGate, etc., which are among the 18 refs in the article. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeepsethi.in (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Swanepoel

Meyer Swanepoel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2). JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as coverage is mainly team announcements and transactional stuff. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Command information newspaper

Command information newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This really exists (type of internal publication within the US military), but it is questionable if it is notable. While various reliable sources mention it in passing (while discussing something said in some particular issue of one of these), I can't find any significant coverage of the concept in itself. Wikipedia is not a repository of all the internal minutiae of how the US military (or any other military in the world) works. PROD contested by User:Kvng SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, and United States of America. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absence of sources and lack of coverage makes it unready for mainspace. Based Kashmiri ^TALK 10:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is a soft redirect to Wiktionary an option here? This is just a definition, and there is no evidence that will change. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Currently, there is no Wiktionary entry for "command information newspaper". Of course, you (or anybody else) could always create one. However, that Wiktionary entry might then be subject to Wiktionary's own review processes to determine whether its inclusion is appropriate. I think it is a bit problematic creating a soft redirect to a Wiktionary entry which doesn't currently exist, and I don't know whether under Wiktionary's own inclusion criteria it would accepted. (My undereducated guess is they probably would decide to keep, but I don't think we should presume that here.) SomethingForDeletion (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article has been expanded and several sources have been added. Most compelling coverage in independent secondary sources include this 2005 opinion piece in Newsday, "Truth is first casualty of war reporting", which describes the command information newspaper Observer during the Vietnam War, and this 1990 article in The Leaf-Chronicle, "101st Media Personnel To Produce Information Newspaper For Troops", which looks at command information newspapers produced by the 101st Airborne Division during three wars (World War II, Vietnam War, Operation Desert Shield). @Kvng: Ping. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements and sources added by Cielquiparle. Thank you! ~Kvng (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianni Mammolotti

Gianni Mammolotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NCREATIVE. No in-depth coverage. Can't find anything about him online except an IMDB page. Clearfrienda ^💬 21:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Various awards and nominations for Best cinematographer. (https://www.inventaunfilm.it/sei-premi-in-cerca-d-autore-2021-autore-dell-anno-gianni-mammolotti/articoli16539 ; http://www.ilquotidiano.it/articoli/2005/09/25/44313/assegnati-i-4-esposimetri-doro-per-il-premio-gianni-di-venanzo ; https://www.daviddidonatello.it/motore-di-ricerca/cercavincitori2.php?idsoggetto=1679&vin= ; https://www.sherlockmagazine.it/index.php/2942/l-aquila-una-citta-in-nero) May meet WP:ANYBIO. ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times") -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC) (edited as there is only 1 Donatello nomination I can verify not more, although the Italian WP mentions 2 (which is not >2) but he has received other awards)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt More

Matt More (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Career never really kicked on, there's a bit of coverage of his time in Ireland and in SA coverage, but probably not enough to suggest a GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nuyorican rap

Nuyorican rap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Unreferenced so I am not proposing a merge, though a redirect is a possible WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article on Nuyorican rap should be considered carefully before nomination for deletion, as it addresses a unique and influential subset of hip hop culture. However, the decision should also weigh the availability of verifiable sources and the overall notability of the subject as per Wikipedia’s guidelines. --Improvised but so real unicorn (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep added sources to meet WP:N. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Didn’t want to substantially rewrite what is here, since that’s a big change, but the added sources and the general coverage of the issue indicate that “Nuyorican rap” is interchangeable with “Nuyorican hip-hop.” This might be worth noticing in the body of the article, and is definitely worth keeping in mind when looking for other sources to continue improving this article. “Nuyorican rap” didn’t return as many solid sources as “Nuyorican hip-hop,” possibly due to the fact that the apex of the genre was the late 90’s, early ‘00’s, when hip-hop was a more commonly used term. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk)
• Redirect to Nuyorican. The refs aren't here to support the article. Desertarun (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Nuyorican rappers perhaps? Niafied (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I see no consensus here, even on a Redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect This article is a stub with references that don't include the word "Nuyorican", and List of Nuyorican rappers is both unsourced and not supported by many of the target articles. There seems to be WP:OR that implies anyone vaguely associated with both New York City and Puerto Rico that is in music is part of this genre. I would redirect both this article and List of Nuyorican rappers to Nuyorican, with only sourced content merged. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nuyorican. There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking in this article and List of Nuyorican rappers as suggested by User:Walsh90210. IMHO, not every artist or art form may be so easily categorized, or wishes to be so easily categorized. BusterD (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhan Kumar Singla

Lakhan Kumar Singla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Literally nothing to establish notability here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources but couldn’t find a single one! The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL as he was never elected as an MLA or MP. GrabUp - Talk 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly failed WP:NPOL. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XML appliance

XML appliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article relies on one singular source to cover the whole article. Fails WP:ONESOURCE and WP:NOTABILITY. I put notability because without the citations we can't say for sure if this article is notable enough to be on Wikipedia alone. On WP:ONESOURCE, "If an article is based on only one source, there may be copyright, original research, and notability concerns.". Clearly, the article has more issues than the ones I presented here. GoodHue291 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogue Planet (novel)

Rogue Planet (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found nothing that shows notability. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment': As for the sources shown in the first AFD - Starwars.com is not independent of the subject which is three of the links, Denver Science Fiction and Fantasy Book Club is unreliable (and about a different book), and SFsite is unreliable. SL93 (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not at all versed in the Star Wars universe so it is possible this could be merged with one or more appropriate lists. I found one sort of substantial review: O'Connor, Michael G. "STAR WARS NOVEL LACKS FORCE TO DELIVER GOODS." Winston-Salem Journal [Winston-Salem, NC], 30 July 2000, p. A20. Gale General OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A63765955/ITOF. It pans the book, but it is still about it. Publisher's Weekly lists it as a best seller over a number of issues. This is from Entertainment Weekly but it looks like various publications pick up the PW list: “`Rogue’ Warrior.” 2000. Entertainment Weekly, no. 542 (May): 69.(Yes, this says "Warrior" instead of "Planet" but it is about the Rogue Planet book.) I didn't find reviews in Kirkus or Library Journal. This is thin for a free-standing article about a book. Lamona (talk) 02:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Powell, Joseph (2000-06-06). "'Rogue Planet' adds little to 'Star Wars saga. Color in scenery, not characters". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Set three years after the events of Episode 1, Rogue Planet follows Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi and his young Padawan (Jedi apprentice) Anakin Skywalker as they search for a missing Jedi Knight and a mystery planet, rumored to be the home of the fastest ships in the galaxy. ... But die-hard fans might be disappointed. Rogue Planet is full of sizzling light sabers, dizzying locales and action that is vintage Star Wars, but it doesn't expand the horizons of this space opera."

  2. Beem, Scott (2000-10-04). "Star Wars: Rogue Planet". The Mt. Zion Region-News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "The writer introduces some coolness: living ships and sentient planets, but is unable to explore them in any detail. seems choppy and hurried. The writing at times; less than fluid. Again I can only assume that the Star Wars series editors had a certain format they insisted upon. Too bad, really. One wonders what Greg Bear might have done, but then Star Wars isn't really his style. He's probably laughing all the way to the bank, as Lucas has so many times."

  3. O'Connor, Michael G. (2000-07-30). "Star Wars novel lacks force to deliver goods". Winston-Salem Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "And the story lacks a Star Wars staple: action. Only at the end do things get really interesting, and even then Anakin and Obi-Wan seem to be mostly out of the action. And the big battle fizzles with a lame and implausible conclusion. Bear does triumph on once score: He successfully ties Rogue Planet into the tight Star Wars chronology, linking events in this story to later ones. His subtlety keeps the reader guessing through most of the novel, and his descriptions give a clearer vision of what the next Star Wars movie will be about."

  4. Modi, Parth (2000-10-01). "'Rogue Planet' is Episode 1.5". Florida Today. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review notes: "One of the newest books to enter the saga is Rogue Planet by Greg Bear. This story takes place between the recently made "Episode 1" and the eagerly anticipated "Episode 2." It has, in fact, been touted as "Episode 1.5." ... I found that while the writing is excellent, the most appealing part of this book is that it fits in with the rest of the Star Wars saga so well. This book is a wonderful read for all science fiction readers as well."

  5. Hunt, Stephen (2000-08-22). "Bear caught in star warp trap". North Yorkshire County Publications. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

     The review notes: "The problem is Bear is constrained from writing a novel of serious impact by his central characters. ... Where Bear's genius glimmers through is in the setting and the supporting characters, where he can give his imagination free rein - and that's when the novel really becomes a page-turner. Certainly one of the better Star Wars novels and, better yet, no Jar-Jar Binks."

  6. Douglas (2000-07-15). "After Phantom, a galactic Rogue". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-05-25. Retrieved 2024-05-25.

     The review notes: "But while Rogue Planet is published under the copyright of George Lucas' Lucasfilm, it is still a book, written by the award-winning science fiction writer Bear. ... I have to confess that it has been many years since I have read a science fiction novel, and Rogue Planet is certainly not one that is written in the Booker Prize winning style that I aspire to read now. But Bear has a straightforward way with words that is almost imagist in its effect."

  7. Buker, Derek M. (2002). Science Fiction and Fantasy Readers' Advisory. Chicago: American Library Association. p. 98. ISBN 0-8389-0831-4. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.

     The book notes: "Rogue Planet by Greg Bear Young Anakin Skywalker has been apprenticed to be a Jedi Knight under the training of Obi Wan Kenobi for the last few years since the events chronicled in Episode I: The Phantom Menace. Although he is a gifted student, lately Anakin has grown restless with his studies at the Jedi Temple and has taken to sneaking off to take part in dangerous races. Hoping to harness the boy’s energy, the Jedi Council assigns Obi Wan and Anakin to look into the disappearance of another Jedi on the mysterious planet Zonama Sekot. What they find is a world of mystery and danger whose inhabitants “grow” wonderful spacecraft. What the pair doesn’t know is that three different factions are closing in on Zonama Sekot with the purpose of stealing the technology to grow organic spacecraft. And they’ll eliminate anyone in the way to get it."

  8. Less significant coverage:
     1. Maryles, Daisy (2000-05-15). "behind the bestsellers". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 247, no. 20. p. 24. EBSCOhost 3218614.

        The article notes: "A brand-name newcomer--Star Wars: Rogue Planet by Greg Bear from Del Rey/Lucas-Books--continues to please and after one week on sale, went back to press for a second printing, bringing the total in print to 193,000. The author is finishing an eight-city tour. "

     2. Barron, Neil; Barton, Tom; Burt, Daniel S.; Hudak, Melissa; Meredith, D. R.; Ramsdell, Kristin; Schantz, Tom; Schantz, Enid (2001). What Do I Read Next?, 2001. Volume 1 : A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction. Detroit: Gale. p. 762. ISBN 0-7876-3391-7. ISSN 1052-2212. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Summary: Obi-Wan and Anakin are sent to the distant and largely unknown planet of Zonama Selot, whose people build the fastest starships in the galaxy. They cross paths with Wilhuff Tarkin, an ambitious military officer, who wants to make use of the planet's advanced technology to create an irresistible military force."

     3. Pringle, David, ed. (June 2001). "Rogue Planet". Interzone. No. 168. p. 63. Retrieved 2024-05-25 – via Internet Archive.

        The article notes: "Bear, Greg. Rogue Planet. “Star Wars.” Arrow/Lucas Books, ISBN 0-09-941030-3, 341 pp, A-format paperback, £5.99. (Sf movie spinoff novel, first published in the USA, 2000; it seems Mr Bear will turn his hand to anything, in this case a novel about the boyhood exploits of George Lucas’s space-opera character Annakin Skywalker; it’s dedicated to, among others, “Jack, and Ed, and Doc Smith,” which shows the right spirit.) 70th May 2001."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rogue Planet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The newspaper reviews that Cunard found demonstrate notability for the book. Toughpigs (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Lamona What do you think of the new sources? I can withdraw the deletion discussion of you think this should be kept. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LYCONET

LYCONET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability with reliable sources being primarily about Lyoness. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWorld. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Schueler

Carey Schueler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject's only claim to fame is that she was the first woman MLB drafted and thus, they lifted their ban on drafting women, both of which are already mentioned in Women in baseball and her dad's articles. While that may be the case, she never actually played in any MLB or even MiLB game unlike Kelsie Whitmore. Her time in high school and college are not worth mentioning as she was not a star athlete in either cases. The sources backing these claims are either dead links or only mention her briefly and I cannot find enough coverage for her in general to meet WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE anyway. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Baseball, Basketball, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Besides the fact that it feels wrong to relegate a woman who broke through in a male dominated field to a mention in her male relative's article (in an encyclopedia which already has a gender gap issue), her drafting was very significant, lead to a rule change and also, notably not a publicity stunt but based on a genuine assessment of her talent. She is well covered in literature on the subject (1). The article could certainly use expansion (I'd like to find information on her performance in her senior year season, for instance), but that by itself is not reason to delete it any more than any other stub article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How you "feel" is not a legit reason to keep an article. I am sure many other editors' personal point of views conflict with the rules here, but they can do nothing about it. Most of those books in that Google search only mention her for a single sentence or paragraph. That is certainly not "well covered." The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first word in my comment is that besides the fact that it feels wrong. I'm also not talking about my personal feelings here, but commenting on how doing things like redirecting a woman's page to her male relative's only enforces systematic gender bias on wikipedia. Many of the books contain only a paragraph mention, but several of them do contain more coverage than that. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Women in baseball per WP:BLP1E. While being the first female drafted in MLB is a big deal, the subject did not sign with, let alone play for, any professional baseball organization. Outside of that, she had a rather unremarkable college basketball career. This person is clearly defined by a single event. She can adequately be covered at the proposed target article, even if information about her high school baseball career is added as suggested by Wasianpower. Frank Anchor 22:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per WP:BLP1E. She was drafted by a team which had her father as general manager, she wasn't signed to a contract, and (per the Chicago Tribune reference) she hadn't played baseball for two years before being drafted. The facts suggest this was a stunt for attention. As there is no substantial coverage of her other than that event, I must vote to redirect. Leaning towards Ron Schueler as the target over Women in baseball, as that article is more likely to contain more than de minimis discussion of her. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose Ron Schueler as a target. Casey Schueler is most notable for being the first woman drafted by MLB, not for being Ron’s daughter. Frank Anchor 00:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with this. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for two reasons: First, there is a discrete entry about Carey Schueler in two different baseball encyclopedias: Donald Dewey, Nicholas Acocella, and Jerome Holtzman's The New Biographical History of Baseball: The Classic—Completely Revised (Triumph Books, 2002) and Leslie A. Heaphy and Mel Anthony May's Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball (McFarland & Company, 2006), indicating that in the field of baseball history Schueler is considered sufficiently notable for inclusion in encyclopedias. Second, the second criterion of WP:ANYBIO is has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and Schueler precipitated the MLB to change a rule about signing contracts for women), an enduring contribution to baseball. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Adamson

Margaret Adamson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Cambodia, Pakistan, Poland, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article was very stub-y so I did some work filling it out using the references that were there. Someone with better access to Australian sources can probably improve this even more. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Corcoran

Angela Corcoran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Cambodia, Myanmar, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is not enough SIGCOV for her to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage is routine. Fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball)

Registration of players under control (Nippon Professional Baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This does not appear to be a notable topic, with most references to NPB.jp (the league website) and the Japan Professional Baseball Players Association. Lacking independent reliable sourced coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Japan. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a clearly notable topic somewhat analogous to the Rule 5 draft in American baseball, and contrasting with Developmental player system (Nippon Professional Baseball). Players must be "registered" in order to play in top-league games, and it is significant news whenever new players are registered. There are sources available in English (e.g. this academic article from Marquette Sports Law Review, Through Sweat and Tears: High School Baseball and the Socialization of Japanese Boys from the University of Michigan in 2005, and numerous news articles about the decisions to register particular players), and it appears no WP:BEFORE was conducted in Japanese, where we see books like 「プロ野球・二軍の謎」(Mysteries of NPB's Minor League, Gentosha, 2017, here), 「プロ野球ビジネスのダイバーシティ戦略」(How Independent Leagues Promote Diversity in Japan, PHP, 2019, here), or 「プロ野球の経済学」(The Economics of NPB, Tōyō Keizai, 2016, here). All of these were found in just a few minutes and I'm sure there is much more available when searching for "registered player"+"NPB" or "developmental player"+"NPB". Dekimasuよ! 00:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not speak Japanese. You're going to have to share what these books actually say, so that we can judge if it's in-depth coverage or WP:ROUTINE mentions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A significant amount of each book-length project listed, as implied by my translations of the book titles, plus apparently dozens more books. I'm not sure it's helpful to do a news or books WP:BEFORE search for "支配下登録" (if you did so), see hundreds or thousands of direct hits in both books and newspapers, and discard all of them due to not understanding Japanese. I'm not sure what you want me to describe about all of the sources either; they describe the contents that are described in the article, the history of the system, its implications for players participating in the system, the commemoration ceremonies for being registered, etc. Dekimasuよ! 01:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dekimasu. Multiple books discussing the subject passes GNG. DCsansei (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Collins

Conor Collins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although this biography has many references, is it actually notable? Does making art that gain media attention due to their provactive notions create sufficient notability? No inbound links. No awards. No wider coverage that I can see. Seaweed (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, Politics, Sexuality and gender, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: More than enough good RS, 3, 4 and 6 are the first ones I pulled up and they're about this individual. I suppose GNG is met, I'm unsure if they meet artistic notability, but they've been talked about enough by others, so that we can also include them here in wiki under general notability. Call it a cultural oddity curiosity I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've looked through most of the sources that could be considered reliable, and none are significant coverage that I see. The "Time" source,[16] for example, is just three sentences and an embedded instagram post. Elspea756 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources 3 and 4 are good, as is source 15 (a reminder that BuzzFeed News is different from BuzzFeed and is reliable). Source 19 even describes the subject as "award-winnning". Toadspike [Talk] 07:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To respond to SportingFlyer below, I think it's clear that the GNG has been met. For us to decide that people who get excessive media attention for provocative stunts need to meet some higher bar would require an RfC, or for someone to point me to some hidden policy/guideline I've never read. The media is biased toward this stuff, and, for better or for worse, we rely on the media to source our articles and determine what's notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure, honestly. There's lots of sources - too many, really - in the article talking about his art, because his art is provocative, but many of them are just links to self-promotion on social media. The article needs a good cleanup, too. I don't really see any critical coverage of him, though, that I would expect to see from an artist. Don't really want to delete, but am leaning delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I must admit I'm a bit confused about biographical articles about artists sometimes. I mean, if your life is about creating artworks, when do you become notable? It's fine if that's your career and livelihood, but when does make you notable for an encyclopedia? Where is the line? I think it's also fair to say that a key feature of the artistic world is about awards, prizes, grants etc. It's quite commonplace. Therefore I do wonder sometimes if we give undue weight to artist who has this award or nominated for that award. I'm also a bit concerned that too much weight is placed on media mentions to justify a Wikipedia article. To be fair, I do find it hard work to read all the Wikipedia policies sometimes, but I suppose that's my problem. In summary, I'm still not convinced that Conor Collins is notable enough for Wikipedia. Failing that, it's definitely too detailed. Seaweed (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I don't see notability here either. The notability guideline for artists is WP:ARTIST. It is basically that there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the artist, or that the artist is widely cited by their peers, has been a significant part of a significant exhibition, their work is in the permanent collections of multiple major museums, things like that. I am not seeing anything like that here, it's all just insignificant WP:ROUTINE coverage of minor run-of-the-mill events, like that "this drawing of a celebrity by a local artist got several thousand likes on twitter." Elspea756 (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's sort of my thinking as well. Most articles include links back to his social media account, making it a question as to whether he's been truly independently noticed in my book. It's clear he's getting noticed, but this may just be WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 17:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Silva

Corinne Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure if this biography is notable. No references. No pages linked. Never quite sure with artists where notability lies. Don't think so in this case. Seaweed (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Photography, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm guessing this is either an autobiography or other type of COI creation by a gallery that shows her work due to the entirely unsourced article containing many details about her. A WP:BEFORE search found a review of her work in Financial Times:[17], but almost everything else I have found so far seems to be gallery PR, social media, an interview[18] (primary source that doesn't count towards notability because no editorial content), a book review on F-stop magazine's blog,[19], database listings, press releases. I also found an online artist project for which she took the photos[20]. The Wikipedia Library found an in-depth article by TJ Demos in Photoworks Journal [21] (you might have to log into WP:LIB to read it). What seems to be missing are a track record of art reviews by critics or art historians, works in museum collections, so I don't think she meets NARTIST, but I think she may meet GNG. Holding off on !voting for now, as I'd like to hear feedback from others who edit in the visual arts/photography area. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I had marked this for notability in 2021. I was in the middle of another task, and did not get back to clean-up/delete. No improvement made to article. Notability tag removed by SPA without adding a single reference. I am not finding any RS to confirm claims made in the article. Fails WP:ARTIST. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Keep - Changing vote to keep per WP:HEY. I rewrote the lede becasue we still don't have a birth year or place and the second sentence was artspeak, not supported by the citation. I also think the unsourced last paragraph of shows should be removed. Only to be returned with sourcing. Article has changed from an artist statement to an article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: Everything about it leaves a bad taste. Nowhere near statisfying WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is nothing more than a artist statement and bio. Complete with the empty "art speak". This has no business being on wikipedia. Steelyphilly (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: As the article has rewritten I flip my vote to Keep. Thank you@Netherzone for your research! I still think that artist statements have no business being on here! Steelyphilly (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – A thorough WP:BEFORE finds that she clearly meets WP:GNG. While in the early stages of her career as an artist who works in the genre of environmental photography and socially aware photography, her work has indeed received critical/analytical coverage that one would expect a notable artist to have. While she does not yet meet WP:NARTIST, there is enough WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources that she solidly meets the general notability guideline. I invite WomenArtistUpdates, MaskedSinger and Steelyphilly to consider the in-depth reliable sources that have been found:

• Magazine article on her work: Financial Times Magazine, January 2019 “Plants, Power and the Israeli State” by Shela Sheikh , https://www.ft.com/content/2847ba10-08b4-11e9-9fe8-acdb36967cfc (try clearing your browser cookies to bypass the paywall)

• An entire academic journal article on her work: "Cultivated Affects The Artistic Politics of Landscape and Memory in Amman’s Gardens" by Colin McLaughlin-Alcock, published: 17 December 2020 https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/var.12219 (you will need a WP:LIB card to access this on Wiley)

• Journal article by Caruso, Martina. 2019. "Conversing with Ghosts of the Previously Tamed: lens-based media technologies and non-human animals in the work of Christoph Keller, Corinne Silva and Basma Alsharif" in ESPACE art actuel ‘Point de vue animal/Animal Point of View’, no. 121 (Winter), pp. 28 – 33.

• Book chapter on her work in: “Photography Reframed: New Visions in Contemporary Photographic Culture.” Editors: Ben Burbridge, Annebella Pollen, the chapter by Chad Elias is on her work: “Landscape Photography's 'New Humanism”, pages 175-186. ISBN 9781784538828, I.B. Tauris (I was able to view on Google Books)

• Her book, “Garden State”, in addition to the review by Hans Durrer in F-Stop Magazine’s blog [22] linked above, there is this review: 2016 Book review: Corinne Silva: Garden State, by Francesca Laura Cavallo, Camera Austria, Issue 135 [23]

• In addition to the twelve-page spread by TJ Demos linked above, (2012) Spaces of Global Capital: On the Photography of Corinne Silva & Jason Larkin, TJ Demos, Photoworks 19, ISBN 9781903796368,[24] there is this review: [25], this review [26], this interview: [27],

The article need to be rewritten, probably pruned back to a short stub with proper citations. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. i will take a look. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. I added three of the refs above to the article. Still not finding any biographical information that can be used in the article. I will continue looking. I can't get past the FT paywall. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WomenArtistUpdates, Financial Times has a really strong paywall~! I can't get back in on Safari even after clearing my cookies. I tried accessing it on Firefox and got it at: [28] I copied the text from the article and will email it to you where you can read it offline if you can't access it thru an alternative browser. If I post it here it will be a COPYVIO. Netherzone (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Netherzone. I changed my !vote. Thanks for digging deeper. I could not see beyond poorly written article originally presented. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per HEY, and if this one has been improved enough to make WomenArtistUpdates flip to Keep that's certainly an indication that things are looking up for the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Entertainment

Green Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject is a recently-launched Pakistani TV channel which seems to have evolved from a YouTube channel some time in 2023. The article has very little content other than a list of the channel's shows, many of which are former articles deleted for lack of notability, and/or for being repeatedly recreated under different titles by socks of Nauman335, a committed sockpuppeteer or possibly a network of related individuals who give the impression they are being paid to promote the channel. They have formed a sort of walled garden with circular notability: the channel is notable because of its roster of notable shows, but the shows are notable because they're on the notable network. In reality, the sourcing is extremely weak: routine coverage, obvious press releases, and/or passing mentions in articles about the shows or about Pakistani television in general. I did not find any better sources in a brief Google search, just more of the same press releases and passing mentions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've been on a bit of a deletion spree with articles about TV shows from this channel, so normally I'd support this deletion nomination. But I think it would be unfair to this encyclopedia, and not just the channel, to not have an article about a channel that's part of the military's ISPR. This channel might actually meet the basic GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't know what ISPR was (it's the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces) and that's not indicated in the article. I'm not sure that lends itself to notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) but might be a lead on better sourcing. I don't have time to check at the moment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's probably something that would be useful to the article in general. The second source [29] seems to be the one decent source in the article and does mention that the channel is backed by ISPR. I think this gives a possible option to redirect the article to Inter-Services Public Relations and add a blurb paragraph that they launched Green Entertainment with the date and anything else from the lead and call it done. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A quick web search turned up nothing really useful. The best I could find was [30], but I'm not convinced that's a reliable source. Otherwise, some social media / forum mentions and articles with a list of shows but not any in depth coverage of the channel itself. I'm leaning to Merge to ISPR at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That does seem like a workable approach. We don't have the sourcing for a separate article, but what info we do have could be merged to the ISPR article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I'm looking at the sources for something that focus on the company Green Entertainment and has in-depth coverage of the company, and it's just not there in the article. The SomethingHaute article is quite probably churnalism from a press-release and even then doesn't have actual in-depth coverage of Green Entertainment. WP:BROADCAST is the notability essay that best fits here and highlights the need for sources for the company itself. I think it is likely this should be notable, but we need the sources that actually backs up that it is notable. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of interest from the Nauman335 sockfarm in this article, but it's mainly about the shows, not the channel. As an alternative to deletion, I would be okay with moving to Draft but move protecting it to force an AFC review (and semi-protecting at least the main article space name). Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ravensfire, But, just because we're unable to keep an eye on this page doesn't automatically mean we should trash it. I don't really spot any blatant PROMO happening in the article itself. The real issue seems to be with articles on TV shows, not so much with this one about the channel itself. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Show the sources that support WP:GNG or WP:NCORP for the channel itself. That is 100% what's needed for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that support this being a notable subject? They aren't in the article that I can see. Easy solution - find them and add them. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, please do read WALLEDGARDEN. This page is exactly the issue. That aside, references do not meet ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I had to take a step back to evaluate this since I have been so ingrained with sock reverts and UPE associated with this sock farm. I just assumed notability as it has numerous shows with Wikipedia pages but did not take WALLEDGARDEN into consideration. Many of the pages that were listed here are now deleted or up for deletion and searching online, the references I do find fail WP:NCORP. A lot of announcements about shows which verify they exist but verifiability is not notability. Also a ton of NEWSORGINDIA. I will place a bet now that this AfD will also be consumed with IPs, SPAs, and likely SOCKS in 3...2..1...--CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Farley

Trey Farley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable broadcaster. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ATD: redirect to Live & Kicking, which covers his tenure on the show as well as his personal life (more so than Katy Hill, which is another possible redirect target). Geschichte (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Royer

Valentin Royer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Can't find any sources that involve more than just a passing mention or his one successful tournament in Tunisia, which isn't enough to meet notability requirements. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added French-language sources that mention him more than just in passing, as well as his finals/titles on the World Tennis Tour. He’s ranked in the top 200 and just passed the first round of qualifying at Roland Garros today. Mellamelina (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that a lot of the references that have been added are again still just passing mentions of Royer and run-of-the-mill mentions of his tournament results. They don't go into any actual depth. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you created the page for Francesco Forti, and I'm confused by why Francesco Forti is seemingly more notable than Royer? Forti's page only has one reference, and it's just his ATP profile, so it seems a bit ridiculous to me that you're dying on this hill. The first five sources on Royer's article alone go into depth about him. And yes, a lot of the other sources are his tournament results because they're included in a section summarizing his professional career, which is hardly where you'd look for a huge thinkpiece about him. Mellamelina (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, re: Bogdan Bobrov, a player with 7 ITF titles and a career-high ranking of 361. You created this article and only cited his ATP profile, so I'm really not understanding how you're taking issue with Royer, who has the same amount of titles and a career-high ranking of 200, well above Bobrov's 361. Mellamelina (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable for anything tennis related. But Mellameline has a good point @Adamtt9:. You created Bogdan Bobrov and that player looks per the page to be even less worthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mean to dogpile on @Adamtt9, but this AfD is absurd to me. Here are the non-notable tennis articles they've created this year alone. All of these are minimally sourced.

  • Zhou Yi (tennis), career-high ranking of 258, 0 ITF singles titles
  • Sebastian Fanselow, career-high ranking of 273, 5 ITF singles titles
  • Roy Stepanov, career-high ranking of 324, 0 ITF singles titles
  • Damien Wenger, career-high ranking of 363, 12 ITF singles titles
  • Alejo Lorenzo Lingua Lavallén, career-high ranking of 400, 1 Challenger singles title
  • Luís Britto, career-high ranking of 1098, 0 ITF singles titles
  • David Jordà Sanchis, career-high ranking of 292, 0 ITF singles titles
  • Tristan Boyer, career-high ranking of 193, 1 Challenger singles title
  • Rémy Bertola, career-high ranking of 309, 3 ITF singles titles
  • Michael Agwi, career-high ranking of 597, 3 ITF singles titles
  • Mark Wallner, career-high ranking of 1095, 0 ITF singles titles
  • Jakob Schnaitter, career-high ranking of 400, 1 Challenger singles title
  • George Goldhoff, career-high ranking of 686, 1 ITF singles titles

  So if we're really trying to cull tennis articles, why don't we start there, rather than the article of someone who just made a Challenger final and passed to the second round of qualifying at a Grand Slam? Mellamelina (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Minimally sourced doesn't equate non-notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So can you tell me what makes each of those players more notable than Royer? Since I don’t have any sources to refer to. Mellamelina (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Might I remind you that this all arose from you claiming that you couldn’t find any sources on Royer, and yet you don’t seem to have any firm ground to stand on in your own articles. To me, it seems like you did one simple English-language search on Royer and jumped to conclusions when you couldn’t find anything within the first 10 seconds of searching. Mellamelina (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Mate I did enough of a search to not find any sources that went into depth, only passing mentions. I went through some French sources, but as I don't speak French, it was slightly difficult to figure out if they were enough to determine notability. So I sent it to AFD. You went and improved the article, so if other people agree with you that these sources are good and WP:GNG is met, then the article will be kept and no harm is done. I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m being “aggressive” because it’s laughable that you’re talking about the state of my sources given the state of the sources on your articles. Don’t you understand that you’re throwing stones from a glass house and it seems a bit hypocritical? Mellamelina (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve done some research on the players I mentioned above that you deem notable enough for their own article, and I’m failing see how most of those, apart from one or two, could be considered more notable than Royer. None of them have even made the qualifying draw of a slam. The fact that you would put a “non-notable” AfD on this article and yet deem those players notable enough for their own articles is again, laughable. When this is over, you should definitely do a deep dive on your own work and consider whether, by your standards, they warrant an article due to notability and sources cited. Mellamelina (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just wondering, have you looked at our guidelines on notability? For tennis related notability a player can 100 ITF events and gain nothing. Those events are filled with children and college players and are the lowest rung of making money. The Challenger level (minor leagues), making a final doesn't cut it either. You have to win a Challenger level event to warrant tennis notability at Wikipedia. Now a person may garner notability in other ways by having magazine articles or newspaper columns specifically about them. Our articles must include these facts to show notability. If you are ranked high enough to make the main draw of the WTA or ATP main tours you also gain notability, so that it is extremely likely that you'd find a good source or two. Obviously there can be an obscure case or two, but the best thing is to look at our guidelines and if a player doesn't pass that minimal litmus test, they shouldn't have an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So why exactly aren't these standards being applied evenly across articles? How does a player like Bogdan Bobrov with zero ATP main draw appearances and zero Challenger titles warrant his own article? Mellamelina (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My bad, he has a Challenger doubles title. Mellamelina (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's the difference... a minor league Challenger title whether its singles or doubles. When the guidelines gained consensus way back when, doubles and singles events were treated exactly the same. Doubles notability has fallen drastically every decade for 50 years to the point that maybe it should be re-looked at... perhaps needing a QF on the main tour to get the quick article creation. But until that happens it's the consensus we go by. There will always be borderline players and you always have to show that general notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree on this point. There are many players who technically meet the WP:NTENNIS requirements of playing in an ATP tour level match in doubles by receiving a wildcard. Even in Masters 1000 tournaments like Jacopo Bilardo and Giorgio Ricca in the Rome Masters just weeks ago. But they are still red links and an article shouldn't be created, because other than that one appearance where they lost comfortably, sourcing is not going to demonstrate an ounce of notability. So both WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG should be looked at to determine whether a player meets guidelines or not. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, that’s fair. Mellamelina (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, only GNG should be used to determine notability, as NSPORT requires GNG to be met. Winning particular titles is completely irrelevant if you haven't cited SIGCOV sources in the article. Further, to qualify towards GNG, the coverage must be of the subject's career as an adult. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But tennis guidelines help determine whether an editor should start creating a draft article knowing the likelihood of GNG will be met by outside sources in English or otherwise. And then consensus will determine whether GNG has been met. What do you mean by an adult? There are countless thousands of articles of people under the age of 18 who meet GNG. What does age have to do with notability? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per YOUNGATH, sources, especially local ones and anything interview-based, on a subject's junior achievements do not qualify as IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But that doesn't mean you get no GNG as a youth. We have be more careful. You don't use a high school paper that says their quarterback is special. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looking at the first 10 sources, I am not seeing enough IRS SIGCOV to meet GNG. Ping me with the three most significant pieces not listed here and I might reconsider.
  Source 1,7 (Ouest-France 1, 5): interview as a child w/ trivial indy coverage, fails YOUNGATH and SIGCOV/INDY N. 2,4,6 (O-F 2, 3, 4): interview with some independent sentences, but still coverage of his juniors career and not enough to be SIGCOV N. 3 Dicodusport: Blog piece in first-person N. 5 Le Telegramme: Interview with very little independent content N. 8 (O-F 6): almost zero independent content N. 9 Tennis Actu: routine match report N. 10 Tennis Plaza: routine match report. JoelleJay (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Frank

Alexander Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm unsure if this footballer is notable. Most of the cited sources seem to be interviews (primary sources) and I'm not finding much else in Google search results, though it may be possible that significant coverage exists in additional foreign-language sources.

This article was PRODded and deleted in 2020, albeit with less substantial content. However, I believe the notability concerns raised then apply to the current version as well. ^Complex/_Rational 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Tajikistan, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My foremost concern would be the reliability of the sources. What are these news outlets? Geschichte (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I found [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], among many more sources. The news outlets are Tajik media outlets and he has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup. Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per sources above. Svartner (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Tajikistan doesn't have freedom of the press. This is a serious concern regarding the sources. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That probably does not apply much to football news and even then the recent tightening of media occurred after most of these sources were published. He has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup. Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First source has some decent coverage (if reliable), the second has a sentence and the other 3 are interviews which are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Dougal18 and per the concerns with Tajik media raised above. One ok source isn't enough to meet GNG, and given the potential that it is not reliable I don't think we can claim SPORTSCRIT is met. JoelleJay (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think important context is needed here... The sources do have secondary coevrage and even then if you look at Russian-speaking media it tends to cover players in the form of interviews (as opposed to e.g. Vietnamese and Indonesian media which are the opposite - tends to write about players without any or little interviews). He has been covered by various Tajikistani news outlets. Cleary was significant figure in Tajik football who played for three Tajik teams and helped Istiklol win AFC President's Cup and has Wikipedia pages in six languages... Defintiyl also has offline sources, having played in pre internet era also. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Event Supplier and Services Association

Event Supplier and Services Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As to be expected with a small trade association, coverage is only in WP:TRADES publications and does not rise to the level of coverage needed for NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters

List of MLS Cup broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer, is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS, neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted delete in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY, two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per failing WP:LISTN. I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements (WP:NOTTVGUIDE), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Chris1834 Talk 15:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996. They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage, after the fact. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)