< May 22	May 24 >

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

The result was delete‎ and draftify to Draft:Fahim Rahim per consensus agreement between participants and nominator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fahim Rahim[edit]

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

Advertisement (and possible self-written resume) of an unnotable kidney doctor and small scale philanthropist. Article itself was written by one User:Khocon, a sockpuppeteer. We also have an article for Fahim's brother which might also be worthy of deletion. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, Pakistan, and Idaho. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This BLP appears to be highly PROMO, written by a blocked sockpuppet, and reads more like a resume to promote themselves and their business. While the subject has won some awards, it's unclear if any of them are notable. According to ANYBIO, we may have to keep the BLP if any of the awards are significant. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: Can we draftify the article for now? Once the promotional content is removed, it can be published again. Additionally, there is not participation to prove these awards are notable. GrabUp - Talk 15:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grabup, I'm afraid this cannot be draftify now as it's AfD'd. See WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe If we build consensus then the article will be Draftify. GrabUp - Talk 15:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Grabup, You've my vote! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: As said before “ Once the promotional content is removed, it can be published via AfC review again. Additionally, there is not participation to prove these awards are notable.” GrabUp - Talk 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Samoht27: Are you willing to withdraw this nomination ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. Drafification seems optimal. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Samoht27, Thank you. Grabup, You'll have to ensure that the review cannot pass unless WP:GNG are met. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  😗 I never said that I am the person who will take all the responsibilities to publish this. Someone will do it in future maybe. GrabUp - Talk 16:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Shah Jahan#Early military campaigns. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mughal conquest of Baglana[edit]

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

Another WP:OR because there's no mention of "Siege of Baglana" or "Mughal conquest of Baglana" in the sources. Also it lacks notability as only found a line around this event, that "Aurangzeb easily overran the kingdom". Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion request for this article, as I couldn't find any sources on the internet. I think that this article should be deleted unless there is more sources. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Shah_Jahan#Early_military_campaigns. Two reliable sources from John F. Richards and Munis Faruqui, also a historian but these two do not have any coverage on the battle or siege. One line that says that an Expedition was sent to Balgana and the kingdom was easily ran over and the kingdom became a vassal and this is not enough to warrant a standalone full fledged page. Maybe best for merge under military campaigns of Shah Jahan. All other sources fail reliability as they are translation of primary sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 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!} 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moxiie[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. All of her songs are self-published and appear to have received very little attention from reliable sources. Search results for her stage name are almost exclusively the songs themselves or her social media, and results for her legal name largely pertain to her career as a makeup artist. Majora4 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The two archived MTV sources (both a small paragraph each) are about all there is. I can't find anything now, 10+ years later. I don't think the singer made any critical waves; no album reviews, no charted singles. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article is a mess.

Fireandflames2 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHC-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't seem to be accurate since its ownership with Bridge Media Networks since it's still an affiliate of Paranormal TV and not NewsNet according to RabbitEars. OWaunTon (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are already up to a second nomination here because the first nomination was malformed — specifially with regard to the AfD tag on the article. It would probably be best for one of the nominations — probably the barely-linked first one — to be itself deleted via G6 before any other action is taken with the article. (I don't yet have any opinion or further comment, in part because of this.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVHC-LD is now closed and this one can run.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:37, 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!} 23:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Swati tribe. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khankhel Swati[edit]

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

No significant coverage of this group. This page previously redirected to Swati tribe; any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content should once again be merged to that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Afghanistan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:45, 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!} 23:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolò D'Amico (rugby union)[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2, 3). JTtheOG (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A few bits here and there that could just make a GNG pass, but a minor career at the top level. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 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!} 23:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine transactional news does not contribute to GNG, and I'm not seeing anything beyond that. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha invasion of Awadh[edit]

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

Full of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR mess, fails notability as we don't find "Maratha invasion of Awadh" in the sources (clearly made up by the starter of article), instead there are several other events like "Invasion of Bhadawar", "raid on Delhi" and "Battle of Jalesar". Clearly the author has mixed up several battles and conflicts to get this resulted article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As per above comment Rawn3012 (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically you are selecting articles for deletion for no reason in actual, you may don't like these article just say it. Combination of those articles has been disscussed long ago and admins gave the permission to Merge it DeepstoneV (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC) — DeepstoneV (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just avoid your first three lines because I want productive discussion, only suggest you to go through WP:AADP. For the rest, I guess you're referring to this discussion but no one is there proposed for merging it in a new article named "Maratha invasion of Awadh" It's just the opinion of ImperialAficionado. The result of the discussion was delete not merge. Admins didn't give permission to merge it. And stop removing the AFD template. Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article "Maratha invasion of Awadh" is not supported by any reliable sources rather the user who created the page just pushed his POV by adding different battles together in a single article. Moreover The New Cambridge History of India Vol 2 Part 4 pg 125 clearly states that Bajirao 1737 expedition (including Delhi) was indecisive not a Mughal victory, also this is a reliable source. Here is the exact quotation from the book; The campaign of 1737 was indecisive, though Bajirao attacked Delhi, even briefly holding the Emperor to ransom. So even results are not appropriate in the different individual battles which are mixed up and displayed here. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk)

Delete or Merge This was a prelude of Bhopal campaign better known as Battle of Bhopal.

I better say that delete this as this totally consisted on WP:SYNTH or merge this in Battle of Bhopal as this was the prelude of the campaign. The whole of Bajirao campaign in Delhi was resulted in Bhopal and annexation of Malwa according to Jaswant Lal Mehta and other WP:RS. पापा जी (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parvinder Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NCRIC. He has played in domestic-level cricket.. but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Cricket. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A substantial domestic career, with 8 centuries and a high score of 203 not out; sources in Indian print media are bound to exist, his career isn't one which will go without coverage. AA (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage here. GoldRomean (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beside his Cricinfo profile which gives a career overview, there looks to be a fair bit of coverage regarding individual innings. Hindustan Times 26 November 2009, Telegraph India 2 November 2013, The Statesman 7 January 2009, Indian Express 20 November 2012. He has played at the highest level of domestic cricket and this seems sufficient coverage to justify an article. --JP (Talk) 08:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary match reports are routine news and per NSPORT and NOTNEWS do not count towards notability, and that is all I'm finding for the subject (including among the links above). Sportspeople are required to have IRS SIGCOV cited in their article, regardless of their achievements and regardless of where or when they played. JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV not regarding individual matches also exists if you look hard enough. --JP (Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does go somewhat beyond a routine transactional report, so I'll reconsider my !vote. I'm not overly familiar with what's routine in cricket outside of match reports, though, so I'm going to ping @Wjemather for his input. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think there's enough here in what JP has found for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is the subject fails WP:NACTOR and it is also noted there is insufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 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, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a notable actress. She hasn't done main roles but she has done supporting roles in dramas and her recent work in Mayi was noted[1]. In these she mentioned how she switched from teacher to host and then acting.[2] Her peronal life.[3](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Supporting roles are not enough to meet WP:NACTOR and the coverages you provided can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It meets WP:Nactor some sources are written this way from interviews before that I did my search on the sources it's reliable from ARY News, Images Dawn and BOL News it's both in English and Urdu.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    - BeauSuzanne, You've to see WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 19 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, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sure, her recent work was "noted" in source 20, but it's a series of photos with maybe 10 lines of text. The rest aren't in RS... Most I can find are interviews or the type of celebrity gossip articles that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, the article fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are short and passing mentions. Additionally, it fails to meet WP:NACTOR as the subject was not a lead or significant character in any notable series, film, or drama. GrabUp - Talk 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Yakkha people. The article on the Rai people does not currently mention Dewan. If the mention is added, and/or there are other meaning of Dewan people, this redirect can be made into a disambiguation page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dewan people[edit]

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

The source provided seems to be the only source about these people that provides any depth and even that is only tangential. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 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!} 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Since it's a name for two ethnic groups, both of which have articles, we can turn the page into a disambiguation page for both of the ethnic groups. EternalNub (talk) 00:40, 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!} 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ahmed Malhi[edit]

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

This actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a well known actor. His roles in dramas has received coverage. His education and how he started his career is mentioned.[4][5][6](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound like WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. Can you provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Wp:V. I am saying that three souces meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG plus his dramas are also written in it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, As the creator of this BLP, you were supposed to provide three best coverage in order to meet GNG. Unfortunately, you haven't done that. The coverage is mostly interviews, which aren't independent of the subject. Such coverage cannot be used to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 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!} 22:54, 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!} 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some of his roles (in the main cast) of notable productions appear to have him meet WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Italy, Ottawa[edit]

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

All this article does is confirm it exists with no third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Italy, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 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!} 22:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Ryshpan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are user-generated, primary sources or trivial coverage (the phone book??). BEFORE search turns up no other evidence of notability as an artist or generally. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very trivial coverage found [7]. No listing in the Getty ULAN [8], the artist hasn't gained critical recognition, with no sourcing in Gscholar found... The person existed, but that's not what we're looking for in a notability guideline. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Poland, Canada, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I added three RS to the article. While cleaning up, I deleted all the unsourced and unnecessary material, and re-formatted two references. I think the article should be kept largely due to Ryshpan's regular exhibitions at the Montreal of Museum of Fine Arts, and his entry in A Dictionary of Canadian Artists. There is also non-trivial coverage of his 1958 retrospective. It passes WP:GNG with at least two reliable sources. Curiocurio (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is definitely improved and I thank you for taking that on! but I question the use of MacDonald's dictionary to validate notability. It doesn't appear to be selective but rather inclusive of any artist (the volume Ryshpan is listed is just Canadian artists with last names R-S, that single volume is over 500 pages long, and Ryshpan warrants a single paragraph). Meanwhile, the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts exhibitions were not selective nor were they exclusive to Ryshpan. The spring exhibition was for many decades an exhibition open to all artists and often included 400-500 works (see page 2 of the source you provided). That leaves a short reference in Ayre's art column, and I frankly disagree that this is enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is that three reliable sources are enough to get over WP:GNG, not WP:NARTIST. Curiocurio (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the question is whether a phone-book-length non-selective directory and an exhibition summary for a non-selective, open-to-all art exhibition constitute "significant coverage" for GNG. I'm skeptical. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Dictionary of Canadian Artists has been completed by the National Gallery of Canada, so it's hardly just a directory. Curiocurio (talk) 17:11, 10 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!} 00:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - This Montreal painter and engraver has an artistic background that deserves to be known. This biographical summary is well referenced.Veillg1 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does the article clean up and new sources added since its nomination change anyone's opinion about notability here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source 5 is about artworks displayed in a library, I'm still not sure that meets notability requirements. The Canadian artist dictionary is fine, but it's still a small mention. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking through the history of the article, it looks like is was created as a memorial to a beloved member of the Montreal community. It was then edited down to try to comply with WP:ARTIST. Unfortunately I think the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:ARTIST. The posthumous retrospective at the local library cannot count towards notability. See the essay WP:MEMORIAL. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The retrospective at the library wasn't posthumous, the artist was still alive. It counts toward WP:GNG, the bar it has to clear. Curiocurio (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. The retrospective was when the artist was living. Regardless, it does not count towards notability.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. After discarding !votes with no basis in policy (which occurred on both sides of the discussion), there is a narrow balance of both !votes and arguments in favor of deletion, taking into consideration that most of the valid keep !votes were phrased as "weak" keeps and acknowledged the paucity of available sourcing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yuno Miles[edit]

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

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

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

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

as much as i love yuno, the only reliable source that talks about him is this, which makes him not notable Authenyo (talk) 00:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i typed this crying knowing that big wikipedia will delete yuno miles Authenyo (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss. OJSimpsonLover (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. TheEpicApartmentLord (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(insert reminder of WP:NOTAVOTE and to actually provide links or a reference to someone else's comment here instead of just saying "some notability")
OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalizing articles. That said, @Air on White, I'm not sure that means why their comment should be discarded. Only sockpuppets have a strike-comments policy. Or was there something I've missed? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the striking of the comment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OJSimpsonLover was blocked for vandalism and his inappropriate username. However, he was not just a blatant vandal, but also a subtler troll: some of his comments appear to be in good faith and were aimed at confusing other users and administrators, making his block less likely. I also believe he was a sockpuppet for his demonstrated familiarity with the customs and policies of Wikipedia and his technical proficiency in areas such as wikitext and referencing. I therefore believe it was reasonable for me to assume that his comment was intended to disrupt the Wikipedia project and should have been struck through. Air on White (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not made any comments that I find questionable and do not seem to be familiar with Wikipedia at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss vandalism or sockpuppetry, so I'll end this discussion here. But I'm willing to continue this discussion (at another page) if anyone is interested, particularly if someone is making an SPI case. Air on White (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) edited Air on White (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a RS per Project Album [9], but that's all I can find for this person. No interviews or articles about him, was hoping something would show up. A lack of sourcing means !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a few sources - maybe look a little harder 2601:449:4100:DA80:E549:EA16:3F2E:1D57 (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... could you link them here? Tollens (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did, they don't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability guidelines. Plus, there’s already a draft article for him at draft:Yuno Miles. (Discuss 0nshore's contributions!!!) 00:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) user indef-blocked for disruption on AFD —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)))[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/news-who-yuno-miles-fans-react-youtuber-releases-hilarious-drake-diss-response-metro-boomin-s-challenge	WP:RSP: user-generated		✘ No
https://www.rapreviews.com/2023/11/yuno-miles-yuno-i-cant-rap/			✔ Yes
https://www.sescoops.com/wwe/rapper-yuno-miles-releases-wwe-diss-track-im-beefing-with-the-wwe	Probably, website has multiple writers and this one has a degree		✔ Yes
https://pitchfork.com/features/article/the-age-of-shitpost-modernism/		~ One example with only one mention	~ Partial
https://gizmodo.com/saga-bbl-drizzy-drake-kendrick-lamar-metro-boomin-1851470820		~ Only one mention as "The Meme Diss Track"; in the article's slides.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Here's a table. I don't think two is enough, is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most editors would consider two enough. Air on White (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SE Scoops is two videos and two quotes of his, with about 5 lines of text otherwise, might be a RS but that's hardly extensive coverage. Maybe 1/2 a source, being generous. I'd still like to see more than these two sources, neither of which is extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The entire article is about a diss track he released.
I do agree that two sources is a bit far from keeping, though. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that pythoncoder has provided a video reference with The Tonight Show, I think that tips the scales towards a weak keep. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he appears in two articles that count towards GNG, but there isn't enough notable articles at the moment for a stronger keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘦𝘭'𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘺, 07:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, speedy per what? Aaron Liu (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AskeeaeWiki, is this even a vote? Per what? dxneo (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like he passes GNG based on the sources so far. Other stuff that may or may not count, some from the draft version:
- [10] from Ones to Watch: Site with music industry backing (Live Nation Entertainment). Not sure about their editorial standards — couldn't find anything about it on RSN or RSP.
- [11] from TheNeedleDrop: may or may not count based on your reading of RSP
- [12]: got played on the nationally-televised The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:THENEEDLEDROP:

... per Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources, these reviews should never be used as third-party sources about living people.

Granted, what you linked isn't a review, it's an interview. But given the discussion is about what third-party sources could be used to justify keeping an article about Yuno Miles, I think this still fairly doesn't fit. It also doesn't help that Fantano isn't a journalist, let alone the fact that using YouTube links (of which this article currently uses two, both linking to Yuno Miles' own songs) is already considered generally unreliable per WP:RSPYT. Cadenrock1 (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this discussion needs more time so I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage seems weak, fails WP:NMUSIC.-KH-1 (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, I personally think Miles is a notable but unreported figure, having a large following but lacking news coverage. This means has and will continue to have his page created many times before being locked. (Discuss Roastedbeanz1 contribs) 17:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Roastedbeanz1, why is your signature bearing @Not0nshoree. Also, I didn't get your argument here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yuno Miles is very much notable. I know there's a stigma against making pages for every insignificant "soundcloud rapper", but rest assured, Yuno Miles is not one of them. ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 18:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping Yuno Miles on Wikipedia. He is already a popular rapper no matter if its meme rap such as "4 Wheeler" or the "BBL Drizzy Freestyle." I think it way to late to make that happen. Diamondpro114 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show evidence using sources that meets WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I can't believe I have to say this but Wikipedia doesn't care that you personally think this article subject is notable. Our subjective judgments are irrelevant to AFD decisions. The question is, are there sufficient reliable sources to establish notability? Are the sources located by User:pythoncoder and any other editors adequate to demonstrate GNG? That's the important question here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to say this but I don't care what you have to say either ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relax bro we all have to follow wikipedia's notability rules and not our own. but ye i think yuno miles is notable, also due to the sources in that chart above, or at least surely will be soon because i have no doubt yuno will get more news coverage. Freedun (yap) 20:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea you right bro mb. I just be insulted when I'm just tryna throw in my two cents n somebody sayin they speakin on "behalf" of wikipedia and that my opinion doesn't matter, just rude and insulting u know? but yea the sources are kinda scarce, i think his page might get deleted for now, but u right we'll def get more news coverage soon ☞ Rim ^{< Talk | Edits >} 20:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the truth is, on Wikipedia, opinions are weighted based on relation to policy. Arguments with actual basis in policy has more weight. You'd have to be really convincing to make a non−policy based argument. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yea its kinda weird and ik wikipedia doesn't have a lot of rapper articles even for example f1lthy (i just made it last night). anyone who watches tiktok knows these people but whatever. if it gets deleted ill remake it after there's more news coverage Freedun (yap) 20:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article doesn't meet GNG, source analysis lacks WP:SIGCOV and intentionally, I don't succumbed with the rationales of being "a fan of a certain musician." Per the state of the article, I was checking redirect to see if the "Hood Rejects" do exist but not. At this point, when sources of an article is not enough to establish notability, it becomes deletion or redirecting. However, there is no room for redirecting and mostly, delete. I have critically accessed the sources presently in the article and some doesn't relate to WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe Could you explain how the two sources I've assessed and the OnesToWatch source from pythoncoder don't meet GNG? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aaron Liu, two sources aren't enough for me to justify whether an article is notable. There isn't any significant coverage of this individual as a musician whatsoever. Also remember that "celebrities" may be famous but not notable. One may have millions of followers, yet neither has he/her been covered in multiple news source. Per my experience so far, they are usually appearing in interviews, some which are not reliable or secondary per WP:RS. While being regarding !voting is not deletion, I am talking about the pure simple fact here and that the truth of the matter. Should I analyse the arguments too to see the argument coming from keep if not most, "he is notable, I have heard the song", "he is famous, I am a fan", etc. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In analysis, for example, no weight will be given to "He is notable in my opinion; while I am not a fan of his music he does have almost 1 million followers on spotify and has been drawn even further into the public eye by his Drake diss." Notability is not ones opinion. If that, then, my father is notable in my mind. The second was I don't think that this page should be entirely erased. It has a good structure, some notability, and there's other pages that should probably be deleted. I vote no for this page deletion. Also why did that OJSimpsonLover fella get blocked??? It says for vandalism but he was just giving his opinion. Here, we don't believe in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. If the editor thinks the other articles like that merits deletion, so be it, nominate it or leave it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b and Not0nshoree argued the article lacking sources and not meeting GNG.

Then the source analysis table generated also good. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand. I assessed four sources above. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yuno Miles' music is unique. Also his song was trending on YouTube and hit music charts. Also he will hit 1m subs soon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedun (talk • contribs)

User:Freedun, I want to know how you know about anything called AFD when you literally joined some minutes ago. What was your previous account? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is AFD? I dont think i had an account from the past but i edited my schools wikipedia page in the past so maybe i did but im not sure Freedun (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedun, that is my point. What is the school and your former name. It might help us know how to analyse your argument as it may lay on "a new user". Tell me the account and why you left after writing your schools page. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh sorry dude I'm not comfortable telling you what high school i went to... Freedun (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual a new editor coming to !vote in an AFD. There is something going on. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

uh ok? Freedun (talk) 06:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually imma say weak keep like Roasted beanz Freedun (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles has fans and they saw the article's deletion notice and came here, duh. It's not unusual but unfortunate. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://www.onestowatch.com/en/blog/meet-yuno-miles-the-internets-favorite-rapper	Was about the rapper	Ones to watch is a music blog and by the virtue of looking at the written content, it made me feel to notify people of a notable blog it is. Another example Bella Naija.	Blog, equally advertorial.	✘ No
https://www.theneedledrop.com/interviews/2023/11/a-conversation-with-yuno-miles	An interview should always be independent as the person interviewed always say about him; those which aren't verifiable at most times.	Per WP:THENEEDLEDROP.	Its an interview per WP:INTERVIEW or related.	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrJWNQSIoNE	Clip of played music. The full show should have contained other stuffs.	The show is reliable and notable as well.	In the context, the music was played within any discussion of it's nature, etc. I could have taken it as a review but no!	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why writing styles disqualify reliability, not to mention the ridiculous notion that that affects the SIGCOV part of the criteria. As said above, the site is ran by writers of an industry giant. This makes it highly likely that they are reliable (reputation, libel & stuff), and I can't find any incidences of false reporting. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Show me their editorial guideline for publication and team. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find any so far, but it seems to be the same people, so I'm asking this at RSN.

Also, I feel like the two sources above and mentions add up to give this borderline notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also I looked closer into the requirements for Wikipedia musicians and Yuno Miles "has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" because they are highly known for meme rap Freedun (yap) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources that claim that. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tbh its just well known but this article looks applicable: [13] Freedun (yap) 04:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that genre-representing, but while it's not significant coverage, it is more than a passing mention, and as said above, I feel like that, other non-trivial mentions, and the two sources I've found above confer notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ye i agree. Freedun (yippity yap) 07:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources are pretty scarce right now, but he did get reviewed on RapReviews and namechecked on Pitchfork. Close enough. 162 etc. (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. If the biography of living person has reliable sources and news, then, the draft shall be created (it already started the draft, so what else?). Qadri223 Talk or discuss only my contributions to the Wikipedia 03:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qadri223 Yes, the article meets the draft criteria, but how the heck does that mean it should be deleted? There is more history here than the Drake event as seen in the Pitchfork and RapReviews coverage above. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says only event but yuno miles has multiple songs in multiple sources so i dont think that makes sense at all. also that draft is way worse so why would we want to use that over this Freedun (yippity yap) 11:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Marston (Red Dead)[edit]

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

The character lacks significant coverage and is not independently notable from John Marston or the video games. The article consists entirely of original research, with only a handful of references taken from a different article (all of which only mention Jack in passing, or not at all). Based on my research of the topic, I don't believe any significant coverage exists, and any further passing mentions can be covered on this list. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's a fairly minor character until the very end of Red Dead, and in Red Dead 2, he's a small child you read with and take fishing... The sources used aren't all about Jack, but about the games themselves. Trivial coverage about a minor character. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2, where the character is mentioned. My arguments are the same as above, but we have a viable AtD here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I tried that, but it was reverted, hence this AfD. I'd probably prefer deletion but I'm not opposed to redirection. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the respective section in Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2. No significant coverage, only passing mentions, and certainly not enough to warrant an independent article. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 03:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough WP:SIGCOV. This is a quick appearance from a minor character and unlikely as a search term, but I don't have strong objections to a redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. At first I was a little shocked that someone was trying to delete the RDR protagonist, but I eventually noticed the name discrepancy. Jack Marston is pretty clearly not a notable character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not a notable enough character in either game he appears in to receive a full article here. Aguy777 (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: They are a protagonist in the first game and so i believe they should stay. There are only 3 protagonists in the game and so i believe all 3 should be in. User:Bowlita (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to clarify that Bowlita (talk · contribs) was blocked shortly after leaving this message per WP:NOTHERE, and was found to be a sock of Jeees777 (talk · contribs), who created this article. I suspect the recent IP attempts to remove the AfD notice were also related. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters of Red Dead Redemption 2. This character is not notable enough to have an article devoted to him, but as a very likely search term relating to characters in the Red Dead Redemption series, this page has its uses as a redirect. JeffSpaceman (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chirp (formerly Cilter Technologies)[edit]

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

Very new/small start-up business that fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. The coverage of this small company (of perhaps 12 employees?) is the type of "startup receives seed funding" business reporting that is common for any similar business. What limited coverage does exist relates to the company's previous brand name - to the extent that the only source (connecting the title of the article with the entity discussed in the article) is the org's own LinkedIn page. If we do not have sufficient reliable/independent sources to even establish that a company of this name exists (and is the same company covered in the other few sources), then SIGCOV is not met. Clearly WP:TOOSOON. (Would have PRODed, but the creator of the article moved it to the main article namespace [over DRAFT]. And re-added [at best] quasi-promotional text about the org being "award-winning". Therefore not "uncontroversial".) Guliolopez (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a mission statement, not an article. Nate • (chatter) 22:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And they can tell whoever runs these things I'm not impressed by the gaming of autoconfirm here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A non-notable startup company. They don't even have a product, vague claim that they will develop something in the future. Spleodrach (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, none of the reference meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six Points, Clay County, Indiana[edit]

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

A passing reference by Baker to a "community" at this intersection (and the GNIS coords are inaccurate: the location is ESE of the label which they used as the location) is not enough. There's nothing much there, and I wasn't able to find anything myself. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of a notable community at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Its clear this is a nonotable intersection.James.folsom (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ordinarily, I'd close as a Redirect to Studio Yotta but that article has also been brought to AFD for consideration. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Tomar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:CREATIVE and the sources appear to be mostly self-published, not reliable, or passing mentions Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -The nomination for deletion is inaccurate. The appropriate category is WP:ENT, not Creative. Subject meets inclusion standards by a comfortable margin. He has appeared in a notable amount of high profile video games and shows and has working relationships with a notable amount of prominent people within his industry. He also co-owns an animation studio which has been involved with many major projects. He has received an award relevant to his industry that is only given to one person per year. He is a longtime member on a well-established and influential youtube channel.

Many of the acting credits are verified through the IMDB citation, which Wikipedia lists as an acceptable source. His roles are also verified through other databases, as well as specific citations on particular roles, which is why there are citations of passing mentions of him with regard to specific roles.

The article should be kept as the subject qualifies under WP:ENT and the overall sourcing is acceptable; if there are issues with individual sources that could be handled in Talk or through the removal or addition of sources instead of a page deletion.

KEP95 (talk) 04:11, 24 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Comics and animation, Engineering, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources don't show notability. I would say redirect to Studio Yotta, but that doesn't look notable either. IgelRM (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant roles in any major productions. "Member of the Year Tanky Award" is not a notable award. Also unlike the user said above, IMDB is not an acceptable source in Wikipedia, see WP:IMDB. --Mika1h (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet ENT or CREATIVE. Largely minor roles or just an "extra". As noted above, the sole keep stance is mistaken - IMDB is not a usable source per WP:IMDB. Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn thanks to FanDePopLatino's work. Mach61 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

List of number-one hits of 1962 (Peru)[edit]

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

These articles lack any relevant citations, as I raised on their creator's talk page two months ago, so they are in violation of the verifiability policy. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Peru. Mach61 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mach61 16:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHARTS makes no mention of La Prensa or any other Peruvian charts, so I'm not sure this data would even be considered reliable to begin with. Also worth noting that if these are deleted, ((PeruvianNumber1s)) also needs to go as it will be entirely redlinks. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If data come from Billboard they are certainly reliable (see WP:CHARTS#Suitable charts#1), if they come from La Prensa very likely too (also per Suitable charts#1), but as per the nomination the current reference is blatantly unrelated as points to an article about Aretha Franklin. --Cavarrone 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I looked into it because I do know that in Perú we've had charts for many decades. The articles nominated are badly sourced and don't have the true information about the songs that topped the charts but I was able to find sources like this one from Billboard Magazine that has a chart from Perú in their "Hits of the World" section on page 28. The source also credits "La Prensa" as the publisher of the chart so the information on the articles isn't actually false, it's just not properly source. We can add some page curation tags to the articles and I can fix them up with reliable sources. I can also share this articles with other Peruvian editors and editors who are part of the Latin Music Project to see if any of them are interested in helping me out with this. FanDePopLatino (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FanDePopLatino Normally I would agree that merely lacking sources is not reason enough to delete a page if they can be found, but I think this sort of list is an exception to that rule. This is about a very specific subject for which there is only one type of source available (old back-catalog editions of Billboard or La Parenta), written by an active editor who should have known they'd have to cite their sources, and yet couldn't be bothered to do so. Without citations, a list like this is useless to someone trying to do research, in a way an uncited prose article is not. Perhaps these pages can be draftified? Mach61 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in principle I'm leaning keep, because the material does seem to be out there. My concern is whether there is enough to make complete lists at present... it looks like only 11 weeks of the year 1966 are available, for example, which is going to lead to big gaps in the 1966 list unless back copies of La Prensa itself can be located. Richard3120 (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:@Mach61 I understand that the editor who created these articles didn't bother to use citations but I have from the moment I was notified of this. If you look back at the articles now you will see that I already finished 1963, make substantial progress on 1962 and 1966, started a bit on 1964, and have yet to get to 1965 but I plan on it. Drafting the pages would be an alternative if they still weren't sourced but as you can see, the articles no longer lack relevant citations or violate verifiability so the reasons for the deletion nomination are no longer relevant since those issues have already been addressed and fixed. FanDePopLatino (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on TNT commentators[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unabale to find any sources discussing this as a group, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Upon a search I couldn't find anything related to TNT's brief time with the Olympics, specifically who the broadcasting was. Conyo14 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of work has been put in to help improve the notability of this particular article. 47 different references have just been added. A lead section has also been added to help clean up and give some better context to TNT's past Olympics coverage and its background/history. Bare in mind that TNT was the very first American cable television network to broadcast the Olympic Games, supplementing CBS' main coverage of the Winter Games during the duration of the 1990s. This article as it is, should be merged with the main TNT Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option instead of outright junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMBING. Some of these do not count as WP:RS, most of these focuses on the events itself rather than the boradcasting. Also, they do not focus on TNT's part with the Olympics. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat myself, why is simply deleting this particular article the absolutely first option (regardless of whether or not there are any reliable sources being provided) instead of for instance, merging it to the main TNT Olympic broadcasts article? Also, if you're going to essentially tell somebody that the sources that they provided "aren't good enough" then please be more specific in regards to what's exactly "wrong with them" and how to improve upon that. Personally, an article should be deleted as an absolute last resort or option if there's absolutely little way that the article can be remotely improved or expanded upon. Otherwise, it's not really productive to constantly reply or react to anybody with a contrary point of view or opinion on what do with an article. BornonJune8 (talk), 07:56, 20 May 20 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After a further review of the sourcing, this still fails to meet the WP:NLIST as the commentators aren't discussed as a group and there is evidently some WP:REFBOMBING going on here. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Orientls (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted: WP:BDP, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:TOSOON, et cetera, etc. El_C 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Suicide of Sammy Teusch[edit]

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

No evidence of Wp:SUSTAINED coverage currently (also see WP:NOTNEWS) and can be recreated in the future if this turns out to have significant impacts. Clearly fulls under the purview of WP:BDP ("Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime") and thus we should presume in favor of privacy. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same arguments as nom: WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BDP. There is no encyclopedic value in documenting this tragic situation. I saw mentions of the family pursuing a law, and perhaps someday a law will pass and be notable and in that context, a brief mention of the suicide that led to the law would be appropriate. He only died less than three weeks ago; if there is continuing coverage six months or a year from now, an article could be reconsidered. (I came across this article and its deletion nomination via WP:BLPN#Suicide of Sammy Teusch.) Schazjmd (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. If this is truly a historically-important event rather than a tragic blip on the radar, there will be plenty of time to build a proper, sourced article then, rather than relying upon ONEEVENT coverage of dubious caliber. Carrite (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear NOTNEWS. At a minimum, this is way WP:TOOSOON. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is tragic, obviously, but the nominator and the previous delete votes have clearly laid out the case for why Wikipedia should not have this article. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BDP clearly and explicitly applies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps the notable event is the persistent failure of school administrators to do anything, let alone develop a coherent strategy to reduce bullying, rather than the suicide itself. The international coverage that the incident received suggests that there will be changes as a result, starting with some school district officials losing their jobs, and perhaps the proposed legislation being enacted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The international coverage looks to me like low-quality churnalism. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom and NOTNEWS, and BDP. Additionally, User:Tempelz should review all the policies and guidelines quoted here in this discussion, and take a look at WP:RSP for acceptable sources to use in any article. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also question the use of Inside Edition as a source, but oddly found basically no discusion of it in the WP:RSN archives. I was actually surprised to find it is still on the air, unlike A Current Affair and other 80's/90's tabloid infotainment shows. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have 282 edits total. I don't fault them for not realizing there were issues with the subject.

Tempelz, while I would advise reading all the linked pages, it's a lot to take in and I won't fault you for not wanting to read everything.

If you do decide to create pages in the future (and I hope you do), I'd recommend reading the general notability guideline, the notability guideline for athletes (particularly the sentence about boxers), and our policy on biographies of living or recently deceased persons. Most other policies and guidelines are unnecessary for now for the edits you do, but I encourage you to read more if you'd like to.

If you ever need help, feel free to ask on my my talk page or on this forum for a speedier response. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If named legislation follows this, a solid Keep case can be made for an article combining the incident with the resulting law. But at this moment, this is clearly news reportage of a personal-level incident. Carrite (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Iff such legislation results, would agree a case could be made for "an article on the resulting law (with the incident as background information)". The difference being in the level of detail. Rotary Engine ^talk 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom, NOTNEWS, BDP. Endorse the advice of Isaidnoway above. Rotary Engine ^talk 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above: *non-hypothetical!* *actual!* BLP concerns for survivors, NOTNEWS, and TOOSOON. If legislation gains coverage indicating notability, the some of this content could go to a legislation article but only with WP:DUE weight and BLP survivors in mind. JFHJr (㊟) 00:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schalk Oelofse[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 23 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) 17:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JWM[edit]

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

Fails WP: N. I found some mentions in some Linux-related books, but nothing that covers the software in-depth. The review in Linux Magazine is broken, but as it stands I can't find evidence that this meets notability standards, since multiple sources are required to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 18:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 17:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlyn Williams[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 17:00, 23 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) 17:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few bits, but not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Rugbyfan22that this article does not have enough legitimate coverage to merit an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic missions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Sudan, London[edit]

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

No useful secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Only sources are a government list of diplomatic missions and a source purportedly about a protest at the embassy more than a decade ago but which appears unrelated. Previously subject of contested PROD and contested merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Sudan, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~redirect~~ Merge to Sudan–United Kingdom relations#Diplomatic_missions as is typical for cases where the building is not itself notable. Mangoe (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the protests aren't mentioned in the main article, there's now something to merge, but the protests were about relations, not buildings. Mangoe (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedantically protests can be about buildings (e.g. [14]), but these ones were not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the comment, pedantically. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found the source for the protests and fixed the article, so that information is now verified. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 48JCL ^(talk) 17:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mateer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeff Mateer

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

The article does not meet Wikipedia:Notability, and likely violates NPOV.

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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arguably notable as one of the whistleblowers who filed a complaint about Ken Paxton, which made The Dallas Morning News call the group the "Texans of the Year", not just for the statements that led to his rejection as a judge nominee. The article seems to have a neutral point of view. Its talk page includes some additional suggested references that might be worth adding. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, his actions as general counsel for First Liberty Institute have been in the news, and are similarly controversial. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mateer easily meets the WP:GNG with the coverage in the article surrounding his failed judicial nomination, along with sources such as [[15]] outside of that context showing that WP:SUSTAINED is met. If the consensus is not to keep, this should be redirected to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies as a WP:ATD. I'm also not seeing any POV issues here. Let'srun (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:USCJN. Presidential judicial nominees whose nomination is withdrawn due to controversy are evaluated the same was as those rejected by the United States Senate, for whom "this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability". Clearly there are other indicia, so this rises above that line. BD2412 T 16:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I doubt this article will stand the test of time and meet WP:sustained standards over the long haul, but I agree with the other editors here that it does meet notoriety standards now and should be kept. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarecta, North Carolina[edit]

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

This is an alleged former town in North Carolina, which was allegedly the first town in its county. I couldn't find anything reliable supporting the existence of this community, Henry McCulloh appears to be his own can of worms, but I don't think there's much on him either. It's also worth noting that this article hasn't been edited since 2014, and the one reference (which is not cited inline) is now a dead link. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and North Carolina. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be a reliable source. This probably warrants more care to determine its level of scholarship, but also offers greater depth of coverage. Lubal (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were not considered because the main subject of those sources is not "sarecta", therefore they are "passing mentions", eg not sig cov. James.folsom (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND and also WP:GNG, per my search which found the books above and also some mentions in scholarly articles. SportingFlyer T·C 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources presented above and incorporated status. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definite keep. Added some sourcing and 1943 map showing location. Very fascinating to see that older states in the United States have formerly incorporated towns that have sunk so far into oblivion to lead to a deletion nomination. Apparently it still had a charter from the state until 1984 although it (and many other towns in the state) had long had no local government. But it was definitely was incorporated in 1787, though losing a battle to be the county seat in 1784 was apparently a blow.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it was surprising how contentious county seats were, and how many "towns" disappeared for that reason. James.folsom (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiQnet[edit]

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

None of the references pass the WP:SIRS test, so fails WP:GNG. This should not have been moved out of draftspace. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Moraes Caetano[edit]

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

Article is full of puffery and reads like a résumé/autobiography. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Brazil. Sgubaldo
Delete. GS citations show negligible impact as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man on the Hill[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, contains a concerning amount of copyvioed material and close paraphrasing, created in draftspace and accepted by a sock. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 15:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete‎ per WP:A7, tagged by nominator. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asuna Gilfoyle[edit]

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

No evidence that he meets GNG. The sources used are primary (and negligible) and I was unable to find any references that would establish his notability. JSFarman (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ling[edit]

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

British actor who does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. BEFORE search turns up no additional references whatsoever in reliable sources. Birth and death information come from IMDb, which is WP:USERGENERATED and thus unreliable. Setting aside IMDb, all we know is that he existed and had minor roles in six films. (The BFI database includes references to his name and roles, but no significant coverage.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Owen× ☎ 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Travel Insurance[edit]

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

Company that fails WP:NCORP. On this page, sources 1, 5, and 7 are WP:ORGTRIV coverage of capital raises. Source 2 is coverage of a Faye founder and does not reference the subject. Sources 3 and 10 are commercial, commission-driven review sites paired with Faye's advertising (editorially not under the Wall Street Journal newsroom, caveat lector!). Source 6 is a WP:INTERVIEW. Source 8 provides passing mention of the subject, not significant coverage, and Source 9 appears to be sponsor content/paid placement since there is a clear VentureBeat editorial disclaimer at the bottom. Additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search are sponsor content, trivial coverage, or other reviews on commission-driven websites. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, and Israel. Owen× ☎ 15:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a startup. Startups are usually not notable. Exceptions exist yet not for Faye. gidonb (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am the one who reviewed this at AfC and you can see discussion on the talk page in that regard, as well as my talk page. I am tough on company sourcing and will say there are at least two sources that go beyond WP:ROUTINE and meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, the argument would be moot at this point since page creator has requested deletion on my talk page. I advised them to come here but would say that moving it back to draft would be a good WP:ATD based on their deletion request. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CNMall41 - thanks for your work at AfC. What sources do you think meet ORGCRIT? If the original editor wants to draftify, I'm happy to agree to that as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going off the message they left on my talk page and obviously they have not opined here yet. I moved a copy to my userspace and can take up the task sometime in the future when I feel like digging deeper. Feel free to delete, move to draft, or whatever.

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Englart[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The majority of sources are primary or don't provide significant coverage. There is only one source that contributes to notability. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Websites, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Politics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Delete''' - agree that the Herald Sun / Moreland Leader source is the only one contributing to notability - this is insufficient for establishing wider notability. Combined with the primary sources, it is overall insufficient at this time to merit inclusion. WmLawson (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• *Delete. A lot of primary sources; many are self-published - fails WP:BIO. Includes partisan commentary – fails WP:NPOV. Consider adding mention to 1998 Australian waterfront dispute depending on sources. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG standards and sources are minor, partisan or questionable. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 15:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Baş[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Never elected to any political office that makes one inherently notable, not enough source to establish GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article appears to be a direct translation of tr:Hüseyin Baş. I tried to move some of the sources from there to here after it was translated without the references intact. There is one additional source used on that language wiki here but I don't know if it's of any use. (After review I can see that a user script marks that link as unreliable - this one has low hopes but I don't think I will be weighing in as someone with no context otherwise.)Recon rabbit 23:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Turkey. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Except for offices within the party proper, the person in question does not seem to have been elected to or held any public regional or national offices in Turkey. Fails NPOL, ANYBIO, and GNG as Vanderwaalforces points out. The article may be relevant for Turkish WP, but it is not (yet) relevant for English WP. --Konanen (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Vasquez (lawyer)[edit]

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

The references are pretty much all churnalism about his election campaign. One is about an ethics complaint, so is about him. Two are geofenced from me. After hw won, the remainder are P pieces about the win. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, failed WP:BIO. He was a WP:ROTM attorney, doing his job, now a DA doing his job. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Oregon, and North America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~WP:TOOSOON. That guys been a prosecutor for a long, long time. It maybe created once notability has been established, but at this point, no.~~ Graywalls (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawn Graywalls (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a successful candidate for a notable elected office. WP:BLP1E only applies when "[t]he person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual," which won't happen here. WP:NPOL is here to keep Wikipedia from getting cluttered with local officials who don't get coverage and unsuccessful candidates whose only notability is associated with the race. Moreover, he has received significant coverage in local and national media (AP, New York Times, New York Times, Oregonian, Willamette Week). Furthermore, national reliable sources have covered Vasquez in the context of the political significance of his win; see New York magazine and Politico. The most we could do is draftify it until January 1, but I think the sources justify keeping the article now, and delaying the inevitable creation of a virtually identical article for a few months strikes me as a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. It would be ridiculous to say he's not notable until the moment he takes office in six months now that he's won. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. Subject is obviously notable, in my opinion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971. I disagree with characterizing the sources as churnalism, particularly the national coverage (and there are many more that could be added). Vasquez is part of a notable trend of centrist challengers defeating progressive DAs in most major cities on the west coast, which continues to attract coverage. He will oversee enforcement of Portland's homelessness policies (which have been covered by NYT and others for several years), and may receive significantly increased coverage if the pending Supreme Court decision (brought by plaintiffs in Oregon) overturns restrictions on homeless enforcement as widely expected. He will also take office in the aftermath of drug re-criminalization in Oregon. Any deletion would be temporary as national coverage is very likely to continue after he is sworn in. Jamedeus (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is very notable. His win and the election as a whole have been reported on national news (AP, NY Post, other local sources, etc). PortlandSaint (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep Vasquez just won the election according to every notable source previously cited, and is therefore the incoming District Attorney of Multnomah County, the most populous county in the state of Oregon. Per WP:JUDGE, local elected officials who have received significant press coverage are automatically presumed to be notable. The guideline also specifically states that people who have not yet assumed an office may still be considered notable. Steven Walling • talk 03:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject meets the WP:GNG through multiple independent, reliable sources. Let'srun (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianus Warmenhoven[edit]

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

Fails WP ANYBIO, GNG BoraVoro (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not enough secondary coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate and draftify at this point. This article was created today, and (understandably) requires improved sources and expansion. I am not wholly convinced that the subject meets WP:BIO, however, I'm inclined to believe that he meets WP:GNG. I believe a Dutch speaker may be able to dig up better sources, however the subject appears to have been a trailblazer in cybersecurity, and appears to meet criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. He was the primary subject of this WP:RS. Warmenhoven gave a keynote presentation at a 2018 NLUUG conference as a subject-matter expert on cybersecurity, the abstract page of which outlines a biography alluding to notability. He was cited as a supervisory research advisor in a cybersecurity Master's thesis. He was the subject of this interview with Marketplace. There are a few other sources a google search reveals fairly quickly that do not appear to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, but do contribute towards the subject's greater notability. Alternatively, this article could be kept and improved on the main namespace, however I am suggesting incubation given the age of the article and the state is presently in. Bgv. (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Falls short of the GNG. Was removed at the lower quality Nlwiki. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotion COMPUTERTRASH (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No prejudice against merging, if anyone wants to pursue that avenue. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Methanol economy[edit]

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

As we now know almost everything is being electrified rather than going to methanol it is not worth spending time to fix the problems with this article - for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Methanol_economy#The_article_is_supposed_to_be_about_methanol_economy,_not_advocacy Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Which deletion criterion is met here? Folly Mox (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
8. Articles with subjects that fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines

or

14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that if anyone thinks it is worth their time merging into Methanol fuel, Hydrogen economy or any other article they could argue for that as an alternative to deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this needs a lot of work. But a Google Scholar search for "methanol economy" is pretty productive. It doesn't really matter whether this is a concept that is ever put into widespread practice; it's still a notable idea that has been widely discussed in peer-reviewed (and other) literature. Lubal (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was really surprised to see this nomination. Even if it's true that the methanol-based economy will be driven out by electrification, how is that relevant? It doesn't alter the fact that this a topic worthy of an article. Athel cb (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There never was a “methanol-based economy”. I think that any info here worthy of being in an article could just as well be part of the Methanol fuel article Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. I don't agree with the deletion rationale. But the term is a buzzword, and the non-WP:SYNTH content would be better in Methanol fuel. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Pooper[edit]

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

Fails SIGCOV. This is about one lady(?) who pooped near people's houses. News outlets reported on it in 2017, but this doesn't meet the standard for sustained, significant coverage. Zanahary (talk) 09:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "similar cases" also seem to me to constitute a coatrack of insignificant stories tied to the topic by original research, since at a glance their sources don't seem connect these other poopers to the one of the article. Zanahary (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new section in Open defecation. Not sure what it should be called though? Orange sticker (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having created the article, I have begun to think it now might be better off being expanded into something like List of public defecation incidents, since some others are mentioned in the article now. I would distinguish "public defecation" from open defecation in that the latter, the existing article makes clear, covers situations where people have to do this for lack of adequate sanitary infrastructure, whereas public defecation takes place when people do have public toilets available yet for whatever reason choose not to use them.

There is apparently some academic research into the latter phenomenon, which would establish notability, yet it was paywalled when I looked at it back in 2017. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree there should be an article/section/list about the phenomenon which seems notable if not the individual incidents/people (well truthfully I wish there didn't need to be an article at all...) Orange sticker (talk) 08:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the OP points out, there is not sustained coverage of this person or this incident. Additionally, since this is about a specific and likely living human—even if an unidentified one—wouldn't WP:BLP apply? And I'm not sure an article that is solely about, well, this episode in a person's life is quite in the spirit of that. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! I affirm. Zanahary (talk) 01:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is a regurgitation of tabloid coverage and speculation from 2017. As noted above, it would probably be a BLP violation if the (unknown) perpetrator were named. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think this is really a BLP violation (it's all cited and she is not named) but it's not sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Additioning sourcing has been found, as the nominator acknowledges, even though the article as written still needs serious rewriting for improvement. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic theism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In the eight years since the last deletion discussion not a single reliable source has been added to substantiate that this is a term in use in the field of theology. Moreover the page contains what looks like original research.

The two sentences in the lede that say "An agnostic theist believes in the existence of one or more gods, but regards the basis of this proposition as unknown or inherently unknowable. The agnostic theist may also or alternatively be agnostic regarding the properties of the god or gods that they believe in." are really just a basic definition of belief in its religious usage.

There are exactly three references on this page;

This reference Benn, Piers (December 1999). Hall, Ronald L. (ed.). "Some Uncertainties about Agnosticism". International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 46 (3). Berlin and New York: Springer Verlag: 171–188. doi:10.1023/A:1003792325966 does not even mention the term agnostic theism.

This reference Seidner, Stanley S. (June 10, 2009) "A Trojan Horse: Logotherapeutic Transcendence and its Secular Implications for Theology doesn't seem to exist. It claims to be archived at the wayback machine but it returns a not found error. Regardless it is being used to cite a suppositional statement about epistemology generally and says nothing about the purported existence of agnostic theism as a concept.

This reference Weatherhead, Leslie (1972). The Christian Agnostic. Abingdon Press. ISBN 978-0-687-06977-4 is being used to cite a statement about the specific characteristics of Christian agnosticism, which has it's own page.

Every other thing I could turn up in a web search is just sourced from this article verbatim. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not a more general term for this? Christian agnosticism Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom, the topic of the article, being agnostic sects or elements of theist religions, could be written about, however it needs to come from RS and not be WP:Synth

Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some of the later uses in Google Scholar might be WP:CIRCULAR from people who learned about it from wikipedia but a search of Google Scholar prior to 2005 shows that this is used to describe viewpoints associated with Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley. So it seems to pass WP:GNG on its own by association with highly notable people. Psychastes (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a good find! Unless some other sources turn up to support the stuff that is in the article at present it is going to pretty much need a complete rewrite. Morgan Leigh | Talk Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Conyo14 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Psychastes. I'd rewrite the article if I had full access to those books too. Oh well. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Notebook[edit]

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

No sources, and Google gives me "No results found for "atomic notebook" "luhmannis"."[16] Fram (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Zettelkasten, which appears to be a practically identical concept. It is very difficult to find instances of "atomic notebook" being used in this way, so I am unsure whether a redirect is suitable. On the other hand, "atomic note" seems to be a more common term. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very unlikely search term for this as well, judging from Google. It looks like the article is just a way to get traffic to or attention for a company, [17]. Fram (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from what I just reverted elsewhere, this is a novel concept created by the article creator1[18]. Fram (talk) 08:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEOLOGISM with no usage in reliable sources. Leaving aside the neologism in the title, the subject that the article attempts to name and describe is a kind of data model for a personal knowledge base: see Personal knowledge base § Data models, where granularity is the word used for the (degree of the) atomic quality in the neologism "Atomic Notebook". If such a data model requires more coverage in Wikipedia, it would be best to begin by expanding that coverage in the article Personal knowledge base. A notebook is just one metaphor for such a data model; as Helpful Raccoon mentioned above, a card file (in German, Zettelkasten) is another metaphor for such a data model. But no matter which metaphor you choose (and here's a long list of such metaphors for example), what you're essentially describing here is a data model for a personal knowledge base. Biogeographist (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atomic Note Taking is a more modern (and more used) term for the concept Zettelkasten, so happy to redirect there instead. Also not happy with the implication that I'm trying to drive traffic for corporate sponsorship, that was never my intention. Стиво (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason at all to redirect this, it hasn't received any outside attention and isn't discussed at the target (and shouldn't be included there for the same reason). Fram (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect isn't appropriate. It needs to be deleted. Note the lack of any supporting reliable sources for the article creator's claim that it's a widely used term. Biogeographist (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 12:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordella auropubescens[edit]

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

This beetle species is absent from any up-to-date database I can access, and does not show up in any literature searches. The GBIF entry appears to have been removed for unknown reasons some time after the article was created. Barring clear and recent presence in the records, I think this is not a currently accepted taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this may be a genus-level issue. Of the first ten species listed at Mordella, one has been reassigned within the genus, two to a different genus, and four have been deleted from GBIF and are otherwise undetectable. Ouch. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like Mordella is a wastebin taxa that needs a lot of rework. I concur this appears to be a species that is no longer accepted. With no information more than what is on the article, I can't support maintaining this article. UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES since this looks like it's not a valid species name. If anyone can dig into the sources for the other species name changes, maybe that might give a clue as to what's going on with the entire genus, but it sounds like it may be defunct. KoA (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something is definitely up with that. CoL lists no species within the genus, but offers half a dozen synonymized instances, so at the very least there have been a lot of reassignments. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ray, 1936, is the author of only a few valid names, all of them in the genus Mordellistena. I can't find any confirmation of the existence of this particular name even as a synonym, but it isn't impossible that it was published and has since vanished from online sources. That said, until and unless it can be confirmed, I would support deletion. Dyanega (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to [19] the original description is in "Arb. morph. tax. Ent. 3, 215". Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may be right, but IRMNG seems to accept the species. See https://www.irmng.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=11516213 Note that the words after Environment (~~marine~~, ~~brackish~~) are struck out. We have an article on Tomoxioda auropubescens Ermisch, 1950, which is also a beetle, and which shares the same specific epithet as Mordella auropubescens. That's not enough evidence that Tomoxioda auropubescens is the new name for Mordella auropubescens, but it's a strong hint that someone who knows more about beetles than I do might want to explore. If this is a simple change of genus, the good article should have an explanation of that added, and the bad article could be replaced with a redirect to the good name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IRMNG added it because GBIF added it. But then GBIF deleted it, and I don't think IRMNG deletes it when GBIF does, so its presence in IRMNG doesn't hold much weight. And T. auropubesens was also deleted at GBIF, so is probably not long for the AFD route... - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've found the original description. [20] The holotype is from Brazil. I have not yet found the text of Ermisch's description of T. auropubescens but it was apparently published in "Die Gattungen der Mordelliden der Welt. Entomologische Blätter 45-46: 34-92" with a type from Sumatra, so apparently unrelated. Choess (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Villowo[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, could not find independent sources with significant attention for the sport. Fram (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Fram (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page does not provide reliable sources showing that the sport meets the general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable localised sport. AA (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that would make this subject meet WP:GNG. It requires multiple independent, reliable sources with in-depth coverage to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 17:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Poorly referenced and specific to a crazy sport no corresponding article on another wiki. Svartner (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Lacks coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Rick[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 06:46, 23 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) 06:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Visuvasampatti[edit]

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 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!} 05:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infant Jesus Church, Selliampatti[edit]

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

No evidence that this local church passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources cited are affiliated with the church or diocese and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional sources to support notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 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!} 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current yeomanry units of the British Army[edit]

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

The scope of this list is the same as the scope of two sections of Yeomanry. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 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!} 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - unnecessary and duplicates content. Not actually even sure the R is needed. JMWt (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even merging is an option as it's just a copy of Yeomanry. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content fork, and repetition, of Yeomanry but with 45x less average views. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rylo Huncho[edit]

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

Coverage only concerns his suicide. See WP:BLP1E. TolWol (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Was not meeting musical notability while alive, his death would not make him more notable. No coverage found outside of his death, not meeting notability guidelines Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable for being a musician. Notable for the manner of his death, which is already yesterday's news and certainly doesn't merit its own Wikipedia page. --Jkaharper (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable person. --JaneciaTaylor (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia editors when it comds to demeaning a kid who accidentally shot himself: 2605:59C8:2653:8B10:EBBB:1D42:4291:808A (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gayathri Vivekanandan[edit]

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

BLP that has already been moved into and back out of draftspace so bringing here for consensus. The subject is a successful business leader but that is not the basis for a Wikipedia article. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Computing, and India. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Recently, the draft was declined by me. Upon my further check, I couldn’t find anything other than interviews or her own words in articles. These sources are not in-depth and can’t establish notability. The subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 04:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had performed an BEFORE prior to S0091's draftification, and believe it very likely that the subject is not able to meet BASIC. With the history, I am also convinced this article is likely an undisclosed advertisement. Honestly I'd call it borderline A7, but its probably easier to let this run and deal witb future creations via G4. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See related AfD (same article creator, MeltPees) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Speech Prof —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page on this living person is poorly sourced with no significant coverage to consider the subject notable to warrant a page on. RangersRus (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same article creator and same issues, I'm unable to locate sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. I was unable to find any non-trivial coverage of the subject via reliable sources. JSFarman (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find enough to establish notability with no significant coverage of the subject. Fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Pomfret[edit]

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

Clearly and blatantly promotional. Reads like a resume. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, Law, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A few obituaries (not about this person) are all I find; this reads like a Linkedin biography. Nothing notable, simply a working lawyer. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not notable as a lawyer. If notable at all, this would be as a gay-catholic author. And then the article would need work. That part was already implied above. Rather than taking a clear position, providing my partial findings to those commenting after me. gidonb (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Christianity. gidonb (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McLintock[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and all coverage seems to be in passing. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Alabama Crimson Tide football team[edit]

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

Alabama did not field a team in 1918, I don't see why an article is necessary when there is no such article for the 1898 season in which Alabama also did not field a team. Gazingo (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football: Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS, per previous consensus we don't keep articles for teams which didn't play any games. Let'srun (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd (at the same time it was sent to AFD) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alabama is one of the most important college football programs. Not sure where else this info would go.~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already says the team cancelled the season due to World War 1. There aren't (to my knowledge) articles for any other teams that didn't play any games. Gazingo (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that [[21]] and [[22]] were deleted for the same rationale as is being presented here. Let'srun (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Patriarca12: @Jweiss11: The two of you are the biggest contributors to this article. Thoughts on its notability? Cbl62 (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football and/or 1919 Alabama Crimson Tide football team. There's certainly detail here should should be kept on Wikipeda. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What details in particular do you think need to be merged? History of Alabama Crimson Tide football already mentions that the team suspended play during the war. Let'srun (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the details in article, like Noojin being appointed head coach, Moore as captain, the schedule that was never played. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of which can be covered in History of Alabama Crimson Tide football. Changing my vote to merge there. Let'srun (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Jweiss11. Cbl62 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors divided between those arguing to Keep versus those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of Alabama Crimson Tide football per the above as an WP:ATD. This standalone article only serves to mislead readers into thinking a season existed for this school, when it didn't. --MuZemike 11:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Breen (human rights activist)[edit]

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

Contested PROD for individual who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. WP:BEFORE search does not turn up significant coverage. Existing article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that fail to demonstrate notability. Sources 1/23, 6, 7/9/11, 15 and 25 are non-independent press releases or official bios, 2, 3 and 19 are trivial mentions in long lists; 4, 10, 14, 21 and 28 32 are passing mentions in coverage of other topics, 5 and 8, 27, 33 and 34 are WP:INTERVIEWS and thus primary sources; 13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 26, 29, 30 and 31 are self-authored material by the subject. 24 does not mention the subject. Only 12 might qualify as SIGCOV, but we need multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The editor who created this article also created Human Rights First which is Breen's organization. Only edits theyve made. And the HRF in their username stands for Human Rights First- right? Appears to be undisclosed COI. Should I put my concerns on the talk page of Human Rights First? Looking at the related pages here we could also be looking at WP:SOCK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedSinger (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My strong delete wasn't enough? ;) MaskedSinger (talk) 06:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC

Delete: It does appear there's connected editing here but just on the merits, IMHO, this subject fails GNG, ANYBIO, and any secondary guideline with which I'm familiar. It reads like a business card for his services. I agree with the source analysis by the nominator as well. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary L. Coleman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. PROD was contested with sources from IMDB and of relatives being added, which do not establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, California, and Pennsylvania. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not exactly sure how to close a previously PROD'd article with a discussion with no participation at all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can’t build an article on album credits and I don’t see in depth coverage in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: His website and the various music streaming sites, are all I can find. I'd agree with the PROD decision, this is not meeting musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Connection[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 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!} 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There were weak arguments coming from both the Keep and Delete perspectives, hence the No consensus closure. But I'm persuaded by comments by Reywas92. It's important not to consider this list article in isolation and compare it to regular articles but to consider whether this articlee is just as valid and well-constructed as similar list articles on other subjects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of long marriages[edit]

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

This article fails WP:NLIST and WP:SELCRIT. I can't find reliable sources that track the list's topic (the longest marriages of all time) nor can I find sources that set 80 years as an appropriate lower bound. It also likely fails WP:LISTPEOPLE's two criteria.

This article, then under the title "List of people with the longest marriages", was previously successfully nominated for deletion along similar lines. Despite an attempt to shift the scope and an ultimate restoration of the article remarkably soon after a DRV, I don't think it has succeeded. It's still essentially a list of longest marriages. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is basically original research. BoldGnome (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of this is original research? It doesn't copy a list someone else has made, but there is nothing here that draws an unsupported conclusion or is unverified synthesis. It's quite well objectively sourced. Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Trivial at best. Sadustu Tau (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I came to this article due to a meme screenshot about it on Instagram, so it at least has proven relevancy even if it fails to adhere to other guidelines. -Louisana (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is "relevancy" of the article a criterion? If you mean notability, it's about the topic, not the article, and isn't determined by Instagram memes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will just note for now that it's perfectly normal to set a threshold for inclusion that keeps the list to a reasonable size. No source is needed to justify the 80-year threshold. I mean, there's nothing at List of largest power stations in the United States that sets 1,500 MW "as an appropriate lower bound". Reywas92^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, article is useful to have and is well sourced as it has 191 sources. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL. Sources must discuss the concept of long marriages otherwise it is WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what OR means... Nothing in this article was just made up or synthesized by WP editors, it's entirely besed on sources. You can argue that compiling information from all these sources isn't notable because most of them are about individual marriages, many just being routine local news recognizing a couple rather than of the broader topic, but I see no original research or unsupported analysis. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does appear to meet SELCRIT (unambiguous, objective, and reliably sourced). Objectively, 80 years is a long time to be married, let alone alive, and as such is a reasonable boundary to regulate size. The fact that these marriages are even being reported solely due to their length trumps the OR argument;the 80 number rightly keeps the list trimmed and not excessivly long and unnavigatable. Per Rewas92, Common sense and consensus should agree with that assessment; similar to Paris being the capital of France. I'm not seeing it as original research; it definitely appears well-sourced and backed up.DrewieStewie (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep, we do have sources remarking how unusually long certain marriages can be out of the marriages in a given large region, e.g. longest-married Dutch couple, longest-married Utahn couple, longest-married British couple, so on. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my problem with this type of content is that it is only generated by collating trivia from many sources. Sources which have not all been examined as to their reliability. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I was going to say "keep" until I read the related article's deletion rationale. If editors can't "find reliable sources that track the list's topic" then it can't have a list. There is also nothing special for the gives 80 year cut-off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, lots and lots and lots of lists have an arbitrary cut-off for size and User:Knowledgekid87's last sentence has no basis in guidelines or precedent as a justification for deletion. List of largest stars has a arbitrary cut off in the first table of 700 solar radii; List of largest snakes has an arbitrary cut-off of 50 pounds; I contribute to List of photovoltaic power stations, whose arbitrary cut-off has increased from 200 to 300 to 400 MW as more items are added. There's also no requirement in guidelines or precendent that a topic must be tracked in a different reliable source. None of the sources for List of the verified shortest people are a tracker that presents the exact same information, nor are any in List of people with the most children, List of oldest living state leaders, the FL List of largest cruise ships or List of heaviest land mammals, List of longest-serving mayors in the United States etc. etc. "Collating trivia from many sources" is simply not forbidden. I don't love this list which is why I didn't vote when I made comments above, but I also don't like bad arguments. Reywas92^Talk 19:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: Couple thoughts. First, if you don't love the list and want to articulate an argument for deletion outside SELCRIT, I'm all ears. Second, I'm drafting off SELCRIT's line "Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources" (my emphasis). I don't work with lists often and am not familiar with the history behind that wording, but with some additional searching it seems like that line could be ambiguous. You can find other editors wrestling with it in this discussion. If my reading of the line doesn't reflect how things actually work in practice, let's go make it less ambiguous. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long marriages are of enduring historical significance and of great importance just like other lists that are mentioned above are as well. User:Suncheon Boy

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadarou Sare[edit]

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

The article subject is a non-notable entrepreneur and PhD student. I could not find any reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject. None of the sources currently cited in the article establish notability: [23] and [24] are interviews in trade publications that read like puff pieces. [25] does not have any clear editorial standards, is based on an interview, and also reads like a puff piece. [26] is a bio and abstract for a talk he gave at a seminar. [27] is an interview with the organizers of the same seminar. [28] is the subject's company's website. [29] is an advertising website. [30] is a slideshow about a project that the subject worked on. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Astronomy, Engineering, Spaceflight, Africa, Ivory Coast, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the deletion discussion above, most links given are primary or simple confirmation of employment/biographical info. The sourcing doesn't pass RS guidelines and there isn't much else I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be speedy deleted per G5 as the article creator has been blocked as a sock of User:Daniel Martin77. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a blog post or LinkedIn. Haruka Amaranth 03:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of largest stars. ✗plicit 00:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UW Aquilae[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NASTRO and therefore not WP:GNG; hardly any coverage in reliable sources. Article likely only exists on the basis of it being a very large star. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 09:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CU Note: The main author was a sock - it would have been a candidate for G5 deletion had Ozzie10aaaa not done a fair bit of tidying up on the article - their thoughts on its retention or otherwise would probably be relevant. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are sources that indicate its notable per [31],--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? All the ones I could find are catalogues which do not establish notability. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 15:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a couple for studies that make mention of "UW Aql", but no more than a few sentences. I'm on the fence about this one. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest known stars, where it is mentioned. This is fairly an obscure star, it doesn't has even a Henry Draper or HIP designation despite its modest brightness of 8.8. I was planning to redirect it to List of stars in Aquila, but it fails the criteria of inclusion for these lists.

InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can't redirect to List of largest known stars as that page is a redirect. At least when I edit Wikipedia, redirects show up as a different color font (green links) rather than articles (blue links).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then redirect to List of largest stars because the name changed recently. InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of largest stars which is the target of the redirect. Mangoe (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of largest stars. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 11:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKUW-LD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another LPTV station with a history of carrying only national services with almost certainly no significant coverage, even in its pre-DTV America/HC2/Innovate days. It's yet another nominal survivor of a 2023 bulk nomination of many DTV America/HC2/Innovate station articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Camden, New Jersey[edit]

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

Looks like a copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a student project but it doesn't appear to contribute much new information or sources. The main article's section could use a trim, but not in duplication like this so I'm not sure what the point is. I'd recommend a redirect or draftify and that the student consult with their teacher and Wikipedia Expert about proper editing and WP:SPLIT procedures. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stand-alone topic. It should be incorporated into the Camden, New Jersey article. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. There is no policy argument given, no analysis of sources, to dictate deletion. There is plenty of possible additional material. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously every city has sources on its culture, but please compare this page and Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture. This is a sloppy copy and paste job that resulted in duplication and little unique content. Of course additional material could be added here or to Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture, but it should be a proper split with summary style, not what this is. WP:REDUNDANT and WP:DUPLICATE are policy arguments not to keep the page. Reywas92^Talk 20:16, 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!} 23:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blatant unnecessary copy/paste from Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture Gjs238 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strictly inferior to Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture; if kept as a split of that article there would need to be a new copy-paste from the city article to replace the article contents, which are less thorough and contain non-encyclopedic phrases removed from the main article. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is a copy/paste from and redundant with Camden,_New_Jersey#Culture. Gjs238 (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Given sources provided. It would have helped if the nominator and other participants had taken the time to evaluate them after they were provided and the discussion relisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sept Days[edit]

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

No SIGCOV. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northern Moonlight 23:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per completely absent significant coverage --BoraVoro (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Guo, Yanxi 郭妍汐; Liu, Jinpeng 刘金鹏 (2016-10-14). "七天•10周年：加拿大七天文化传媒2006-2016" [Sept Days·10th Anniversary: Canadian Sept Days Cultural Media 2006–2016]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "《七天》报创刊于2006年7月7日。刊头为中英法三语《Sept七天 Days》, 以体现《七天》生活在加拿大多元文化的氛围之中，又由于《七天》是在官方语言为法语的加拿大魁北克省注册，因此法语优先。《七天》报为周报，一周七天，其含义是关注和涵盖生活的每一天。"
  From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" newspaper was founded on 7 July 2006. The masthead is "Sept Days" in Chinese, English and French to reflect that "Sept Days" lives in a multicultural atmosphere in Canada. And because "Sept Days" is registered in the Canadian province of Quebec, where the official language is French, French is given priority. "Sept Days" is a weekly newspaper, seven days a week, which means to pay attention to and cover every day of life."
  The article notes: "2007年，七天派记者奔赴阿富汗战场，对有加拿大军队参加的这场战争的性质和意义进行了零距离的观察和报道，七天记者胡宪成为海外华文媒体战地记者第一人；"
  From Google Translate: "In 2007, Sept Days sent reporters to the battlefield in Afghanistan to conduct close-up observations and reports on the nature and significance of the war involving Canadian troops. Sept Days reporter Hu Xian became the first overseas Chinese-language media war correspondent;"
2. Cong, Ling 葱岭 (2021-09-06). "加拿大蒙城，一位金融人的华丽变身" [Montreal, Canada, a financial man's gorgeous transformation]. Xinmin Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "这是一家活跃在加拿大法语城市蒙特利尔的华文媒体，创办16年，累计出版了上千期的中法文报纸杂志和8部书籍。它是第一个向阿富汗派出战地记者的海外华文媒体，也是两次受邀随加拿大总理访华的当地华文媒体。它创办读者俱乐部，举办了几十场各类文化、体育、商务活动，成了当地华人的联系纽带和精神家园。"
  From Google Translate: "This is a Chinese-language media active in Montreal, a French-speaking city in Canada. It was founded 16 years ago and has published thousands of issues of Chinese and French newspapers and magazines and 8 books. It is the first overseas Chinese-language media to send war correspondents to Afghanistan, and it is also the local Chinese-language media twice invited to visit China with the Canadian Prime Minister. It established readers’ clubs and held dozens of cultural, sports, and business activities of various types, becoming a link and spiritual home for local Chinese."
  The article notes: "2006年，尹灵再次辞职，创办华文报纸《七天》。那年，她40岁。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2006, Yin Ling resigned again and founded the Chinese newspaper "Sept Days". That year, she was 40 years old."
  The article notes: "《七天》从一开始就摒弃了很多海外中文报纸翻译本地新闻、复制粘贴的做法，坚持自己采访、自己撰稿，一下子吸引了大批读者。"
  From Google Translate: "From the beginning, "Sept Days" abandoned many overseas Chinese newspapers' practices of translating local news and copying and pasting. It insisted on doing its own interviews and writing its own articles, and it suddenly attracted a large number of readers."
3. Xu, Chang-an 徐长安 (2016-10-29). "加拿大《七天》传媒发布法文报《La Connexion》" [Canada's "Sept Days" media releases French newspaper "La Connexion"] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "蒙特利尔华文媒体《七天》传媒10月28日晚在当地举行晚宴，庆祝该报创立10周年。该报新创办的法文报纸《La Connexion》也正式发布。加拿大总理多为《七天》10周年庆祝活动发来贺信。特鲁多说，值此《七天》传媒10周年之际，"
  From Google Translate: "Montreal Chinese-language media "Sept Days" held a dinner locally on the evening of October 28 to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the newspaper's founding. The newspaper's new French-language newspaper "La Connexion" was also officially launched. The Prime Minister of Canada has sent congratulatory messages to celebrate the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days". Trudeau said that on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of "Sept Days" media,"
4. Li, Dan 李丹 (2016-11-10). "加拿大七天传媒成立十周年庆典在蒙特利尔举行" [The 10th anniversary celebration of Sept Days in Canada was held in Montreal]. 美中时报 [Sino-US Times] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "《七天》是世界各国领导人访问加拿大时的必邀华文媒体。中国国务院总理李克强在2016年9月23日访问加拿大时，亦特邀《七天》参与了华文媒体座谈会。"
  From Google Translate: ""Sept Days" is the Chinese-language media that must be invited when world leaders visit Canada. When Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visited Canada on September 23, 2016, he specially invited "Seven Days" to participate in a Chinese media symposium."
5. "New voices, expanding horizons. When Sept Days sent Montreal journalist Xian Hu to Afghanistan last December, the weekly Chinese newspaper was not only making a statement to its competitors in the community here, but to mainstream newspapers as well". The Gazette. 2008-02-23. Archived from the original on 2012-11-05. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "Sept Days competes with five other Chinese newspapers in a market of no more than 100,000 potential readers. Its three full-time journalists and five freelancers focus on a mix of local, international and entertainment news. Ten thousand copies are printed of each issue and, according to Yin, 50,000 people read the paper each week. The paper is free of charge, and advertising and investments from the paper's board of directors keep it afloat, but Yin admits that it has yet to break even. Sending Hu to Afghanistan was an unusual step for an ethnic newspaper, but it has earned Sept Days a certain notoriety in the Chinese community. Last month, the paper sponsored a lecture by Hu on her experience in Kabul, and this month, it will send another reporter overseas to cover the presidential election in Taiwan."
6. Lum, Zi-Ann; Taylor-Vaisey, Nick; Duggan, Kyle (2023-06-23). "Fixer upper on the Hill". Politico. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22.
  The article notes: "Conservative Sen. Victor Oh was in Montreal earlier this month to drum up enthusiasm for Saturday’s rally on the Hill. His visit was covered by Sept Days, a Montreal Chinese-language publisher with links to the Chinese Community Party. Sept Days was among a handful of Canadian organizations that attended the Chinese government’s United Front Work Department media forum training in 2019, according to a recent report by Alliance Canada Hong Kong."
7. Yu, Ruidong 余瑞冬 (2018-06-24). "《加拿大华人精英录》一书在蒙特利尔首发" [The book "A Record of Canadian Chinese Elites" was launched in Montreal] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-05-22. Retrieved 2024-05-22 – via Phoenix Television.
  The article notes: "由加拿大七天传媒出版社出版的《加拿大华人精英录》一书于当地时间6月22日晚在蒙特利尔首发，正式与读者见面。"
  From Google Translate: "The book "Canadian Chinese Elites" published by Canada's Seven Days Media Publishing House was first launched in Montreal on the evening of June 22, local time, and officially met with readers."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sept Days (Chinese: 七天) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess identified sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and I have also semi'ed it to stop the disruption. I don't involve a relist as Involved, but if someone else does feel free to revisit Star Mississippi 03:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article was in an abysmal state when it was first nominated for deletion, but has been expanded significantly by Cunard and the coverage outlined above easily demonstrates notability. No mention of any WP:BEFORE search. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKUT-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Yet another DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that has only ever carried national services without much if any significant coverage, even before their ownership. Like many of the others, this artilcle is another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single-level[edit]

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

WP:PARTIAL only. fgnievinski (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is not a proper disambiguation page because the terms just share the word "single-level" in common, not their respective nouns. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PARTIAL says everything it needs to BrigadierG (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form - could redirect somewhere useful. JoshuaAuble (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Goss (rugby union)[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 02:07, 23 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) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of transactional stuff from his time in England, but struggling to see enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK #1 no valid rationale and other recent noms. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Life Crustacean[edit]

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

too many problems Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sampie Mastriet[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences here. Possible redirect targets include List of South Africa national rugby sevens players and List of South Africa national under-20 rugby union team players. JTtheOG (talk) 01:49, 23 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) 01:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Africa national rugby sevens players A fair bit of coverage, a lot that actually names him, but probably not enough for a WP:GNG pass. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. WP:SK #1 - no valid reason for deletion provided. (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Tuna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

sorry charlie but your article is being deleted due to legal problems Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mount Elizabeth Hospital. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Elizabeth Novena Hospital[edit]

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

Marked for notability concerns since 2022. The coverage I found were like incidents involving nurses but nothing indepth to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Singapore. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mount Elizabeth Hospital: parent subject, if there is no improvement to the article. – robertsky (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Mount Elizabeth Hospital. This appears to be a 2nd campus of the same hospital. Meets WP:GNG, and in the context of the parent article also meets WP:NORG/WP:NHOSPITAL. Does not appear to have a substantial coverage independently for a standalone article. Bgv. (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WZDS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations: a newer (2010s/2020s-started) LPTV carrying only national services is highly unlikely to attain the requisite significant coverage, so this redirect as an alternative to deletion is the best we can do. (Note that had Weigel not bought this station, it would have been an equally non-notable DTV America/HC2/Innovate station…) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree BMarGlines (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Zafrul Hasan Rizvi[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from a cursory Google search, it seems like this is someone who might be (barely) notable if you're an islamic scholar who knows where to find the right sources to back everything up. While I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, this article is in such a dire state of unsourced, highly original disrepair (and has been for over a decade) that if I ripped out everything that isn't verifiable we're gonna be down to a single sentence with no indication of notability. Regretfully, I propose WP:TNT. BrigadierG (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not any reliable sources on the page with significant coverage on the subject. This is another one of those WP:SYNTH pages where an editor uses his own analysis or synthesis of materials that implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I found not a single reliable source with in-depth coverage that can establish notability for the subject. The subject fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed WP:GNG, nothing found about this person. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage and fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Movieguide Epiphany Prize for Most Inspiring Movie[edit]

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

Weird partisan award that reviews movies "from a christian perspective" with no coverage aside from that which it generates itself. BrigadierG (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. I came up with no coverage beyond the cursory.
Weak keep per RunningTiger123 and a few column inches in the LA Times in 1996. JSFarman (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Awards. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the awards are covered in industry publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and Deadline. Based on practices for other awards, once the overall awards are established as notable and have run for a few years, individual category lists such as this are acceptable (especially since the listed films mostly have their own articles, fulfilling a navigational purpose as well). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have noted, there's some press coverage, if not much. But even if there weren't, notability isn't proportional to coverage. The moral implications of the culture is a huge issue, and this award is the biggest thing I know of that deals with that. It's true that it's partisan, and that's a reason to provide a counterpoint, but it isn't a reason to suppress information about it. That would be far more partisan than the award is. - Burner89751654 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from the main article and has reliable sources coverage such as Variety, Deadline, and Hollywood Reporter, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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