Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 8 (Wed) May 7 (Tue) May 6 (Mon) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 02	May 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Battles of Inje and Qalaburun

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

One of many poorly created articles translated from the Azeri Wikipedia (for more details, see [1]).

Nothing comes up when searching "Battles of Inje and Qalaburun", which makes me fail to see how it meets the notable criteria. And the most cited sources here (5 out of 6 citations) is by a genocide denier [2] Jamil Hasanli, who is also closely connected to the Aliyev-ruled Azerbaijani government, notorious for its historical negationism/revisionism [3] [4] [5] and anti-Iranian sentiments [6], which is not really ideal for an article about the history of Iran. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Iran, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharti Bharat Kamdi

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Subject is only going to contest in the general elections that is to come in June, being a candidate from a party doesn't automatically pass WP:NPOL, and being a Chairperson of the Palghar Zilla Parishad doesn't pass WP:NPOL either. This is more or less too early. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Owen× ☎ 23:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOO SOON. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Maliner (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Claire 26 (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiftboard

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable notability Amigao (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Management, Internet, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A couple of reliable sources on the article, seems to meet WP:NORG. A couple of hits in the news section of Google too. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the references pass the WP:SIRS test? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Ahuja

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

Questionable notability and lack of sustained coverage with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, Myanmar, Delhi, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is not Sanjeev Ahuja, who is probably notable. (Erased prior erroneous post). Bearian (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 World Aquatics Artistic Swimming World Cup

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

This page has no references, and so fails both verifiability and general notability. It has been moved to draft space twice, by User:Hey man im josh and User:Wikishovel, and moved back to article space twice by the originator with no apparent improvement. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and France. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add references and links. You don't have to draft it for that. In addition, you can see what it is all about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hshezsvsbebe (talk • contribs)
- Yes, we do have to draftify articles that have no references. Verifiability is a non-negotiable core policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going to suggest draftifying, as it's an international event sponsored by an international governing body, but I can't find any significant coverage of the event yet in RS, even though we're on the second day of a 3-day event. A redirect to World Aquatics is another possibility. Maybe if subsequent events get better coverage, this could be merged later into a single article World Aquatics Artistic Swimming World Cup. This is the second year that this tournament was held, and according to the World Aquatics article, it replaces the World Series that was held 2017–2022 [7]. Wikishovel (talk) 06:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Grandstaff

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Tracy Grandstaff * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Daria Morgendorffer for single character notability.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote at the RfD, the page is not suitable as a redirect to any target. Jay 💬 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With coverage in TV Insider, Yahoo News, Vice, and TV Insider (again), I see notability for Grandstaff. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:25, 1 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!} 22:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage of someone with a fairly notable voice role Claire 26 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 14:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Online Film Critics' Poll[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Listicle with minimal coverage (and what it does get is from blog-type websites rather than any major news source). Violates MOS:FILMACCOLADES, specifically the sentence 'Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not generally included'. Survived an AfD in 2013 that was marred by WP:SPA activity. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and Internet. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. We don't have an article on the organisation "International Online Film Critics", so I don't know why we'd have an article on their poll. Desertarun (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I'm confused. Is this a fork of Online Film Critics Society? Bearian (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Despite their similar names, they're two different things. The Online Film Critics Society is a notable organisation and there's plenty of coverage for it. The International Online Film Critics' Poll has no significant coverage (or its own website). Sgubaldo (talk) 14:13, 1 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!} 22:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom toweli (talk) 10:48, 6 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.

Mai Whelan

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

Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:

(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.

(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.

As ever, open to views! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Vietnam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We probably have enough for notability based on the game show win. [8] is also another source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oladipupo Timothy Clement

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are either passing mentions, unreliable, dependent on the subject, PRs, etc. Nothing to establish WP:BASIC here. Overall, very non-neutrally written and promotional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO. Flowery language used in the sources doesn't fill me with hope. I don't find any that don't appear to be promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only is the article promotional, the sources cited do not give an in-depth coverage of the topic. Some sources only talk about how he did this and that, or how his business did this and that. Other sources are mere "trival" and passing metions of the subject. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO to me. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is lased with PR releases and puff pieces. GNG is not meet. Best, Reading Beans 10:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly feel like this one should be speedy delete under G11. Might tag later. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did that, only for it to get reverted. Note that both links will not work if this is deleted JuniperChill (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reading Beans. Non-notable subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article lacks reliable & independent sources. Also promotional language and trivial mentions raise concerns about notability. Waqar💬 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been totally re-written, and all necessary observations have been implemented. Thank you all. Akowe1975 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ogaga Sakpaide

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are obviously PRs, advertorials, interviews, piecs that closely relates to the subject, and passing mentions, etc. No credible claim of notability on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article currently has about 17 references, which would mean that the editor tried to find sources on the subject. I did an online search, and I couldn't find any secondary independent reliable source. The subject doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources used in the article are either advertorials, or most parts written in first person pronoun, "I" (in the interviews). They're not reliable. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PR sources for a PR folk—in unreliable sources. GNG is not met. Best, Reading Beans 10:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Majority of the article's sources are interviews he granted with a few outlets. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per ZyphorianNexus, fails GNG and ANYBIO. dxneo (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasila (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable hits online, fails WP:NFILM at this time. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only secondary coverage I can find is in Brian Larkin's Signal and Noise: Media, Infrastructure, and Urban Culture in Nigeria. Doesn't seem like enough to establish notability. hinnk (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. I ran a Google search and couldn't find a single reliable source that discusses the film. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Film lacks independent coverage in reliable sources WP:NFILM. Waqar💬 17:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aapla Alpha Awards

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

Fails WP:GNG. Redirect disputed by IP. Cannot find sources to show how this meets notability. CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean South America

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

WP:UNSOURCED since creation in 2004. Not mentioned in any Google Books source, so likely fails WP:GNG. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Caribbean and South America. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than an unsourced defintion. The prod removal is utterly absurd, if you think this is "not an uncotroversial deletion", you need to explain what makes it controversial. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be sourced. I found hits in Google Books, but not on the first page, and "Caribe sudamericano" brought up other hits as well. There are potentially usable sources on the Spanish and Portuguese language pages. SportingFlyer T·C 22:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which Books results are you seeing? Beyond the first page of the Caribbean—South America plate boundary, the hits are tables where they are adjacent labels. Looking at the iw links and searches in Spanish, it still just seems there's nothing much more to say beyond that Colombia and Venezula border the Caribbean and this may be a convenient way to group them. Merge that definition to Outline_of_South_America#Regions_of_South_America or something. Reywas92^Talk 04:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various US Trade publications and some old guide books. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ministry of Tourism of Colombia calls that place “Caribe Colombiano” (I put a reference to the government page) so I think we just don’t know about it because we don’t live in Colombia, but seems to be a pretty notable geographical division for them. Contributor892z (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I never saw on any geography books that there is a Caribbean part of South America. Culturally speaking, I know that Guyana feels closer to the Caribbean than to South America, but I’m not sure this is worthy of an article. Contributor892z (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guyana is generally considered part of the West Indies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty short, but Colombians clearly consider their northern coast from at least Cartagena and the Rosario Islands in the west to Riohacha and the Guajira Peninsula in the east to be Caribbean. The food and culture in the coastal region is heavily based on the Caribbean. Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you are right, so I put the references (including one from Unesco that I got from the page Caribe Sudamericano) and now I am in favour of Keep then. Contributor892z (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarity, I am in favour of Keep because it passes WP:NGEO: "named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable." Contributor892z (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic is already dealt with by country in the articles for the Caribbean region of Colombia and Venezuelan Caribbean. Not sure what added value we get by having an additional stub article on the combined Caribbean region of the two countries. That said, Spanish Wikipedians who are more knowledgeable on the topic than I deem it worthy of a stand-alone article. See "Caribe sudamericano" on Spanish Wikipedia. I suppose it may also serve a useful navigational purpose if nothing else. Cbl62 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, we might as well make it a DP. NLeeuw (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, if the Spanish Wikipedia thought this was notable, it probably is… Contributor892z (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Caribbean zone

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

This reads somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Geography, and Caribbean. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Indeed it is very similar to the other 3 Caribbean subregion articles I nominated for deletion earlier today. It has sources, but those usually only deal with specific countries and not the purported wider region as a whole. NLeeuw (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone.

This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region.

This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket.

I am perfectly willing to accept a merger with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this "zone" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92^Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [9] SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I DO NOT agree on deleting this article because there is some important components that can help with the article. I'm currently not certain if a merger is possible while there there's a way to improve the nature of this article or we could just keep it as is while improving it. 20chances (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Slutzker

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tal Slutzker (2nd nomination)

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

No significant, numerous, third-party sources can be found to support notability in general or as an artist; just a couple of interviews and one advertorial: A young artist like myriads of others. No judgement whatsoever on artistic value, this. But Wikipedia is not a complete directory of artists nor a random collection of information. -The Gnome (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, and possible public relations editing by the editor responsible for placing overwhelming majority of contents into that article. Graywalls (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are absent really, which is unfortunate really for a quite stellar artist. I couldn't find any of his work any major museums unfortunately. I may be early days hopefully. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough there yet, could be WP:TOOSOON BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the criteria for notability of an artist (NARTIST) is "The person's work (or works) has: ... been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" (note the singular). The article lists 6 solo exhibitions and 11 non-solo exhibitions. His he.wiki article lists 20 exhibitions and 4 books. This is quite a lot. Here is an article about an exhibition he had at the Herzliya Museum of Modern Art. Here is a newspaper article about another exhibition. In order to decide that he fails NARTIST, it is necessary to decide that none of these 20 exhibitions count as "significant". This has not been done yet on this page and I'm dubious. To me he looks quite notable. Zero^talk 16:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to his exhibition at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Slutzker had a solo exhibition at the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Israel's largest art museum. Coverage in multiple national publications, including Walla!News, Maariv, and Ynet also satisfy the superseding WP:NBIO. Longhornsg (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A BEFORE search did not turn up much other than social media, some primary sources, interviews (primary and light weight with some questions like "What's your cat's name?" and press-release-based coverage, but no critical analysis in major art magazines or art history books. He doesn't meet WP:NARTIST either. Having a small handful of shows, even with a couple at museums is not relevant - that's just what artists do, they show their work like hundreds of thousands of other artists. A significant exhibition is being in the Venice Biennale, or Documenta, Sao Paulo Biennial, Carnegie International, or the Whitney Biennial. Appears to be a COI entry. It appears to be WP:TOOSOON for this emerging artist, perhaps in a few more years he will be ready for an encyclopedia article. Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply not true that "hundreds of thousands" of artists have multiple solo exhibitions. It's not like they invite themselves, they have to be invited by a gallery which considers their work significant enough to take other works of art off the wall for a while. As for what "significant exhibition" means: who says? Looking at List of Israeli visual artists, I see many articles about artists with weaker exhibition histories. It seems that existing practice in deciding notability does not impose such high standards as you do. Zero^talk 14:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you truly never heard of vanity exhibitions? (I'm not implying the same for our subject; I have no proof of any such practice.) It's similar to vanity publishing. In the country I live, as well as in a number of countries that I have visited, many a galley earns a living or compliments its living by hosting the latest masterpieces of amateur enthusiasts. I do not think badly at all about said enthusiasts. They have every right to their activities. And they contribute to the financial well-being of galleries. But, please, don't insist that all the "thousands of exhibitions" are done by gallery invitation. 'T ain't so. -The Gnome (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome is correct about the existence of vanity exhibitions, there are also thousands of pay-to-pay juried exhibits which are slightly different. An artist pays a fee to have their work considered for it, if the jury selects the artists's work, then the artist pays for shipping to and from the exhibit, and if they happen to sell work get 50% of the sales price. There are also many pay-to-play "art magazines" that are designed like actual art magazines or journals. The artist pays to have a page, or a two-page spread, or a "feature article". Native advertising and Advertorials have become wide-spread in the art world, as has Informative advertising. Netherzone (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries always take a cut for artworks sold at exhibitions, that means nothing. Between 30% and 50% is normal. I'm married to an artist (albeit in a different country) so I have first-hand experience of this. Please provide your evidence that Slutzker's solo exhibitions at the Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art and the Tel Aviv Museum of Art were anything other than normal exhibitions. If you don't have such evidence you shouldn't make assumptions. Zero^talk 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly sorry to say that for a Wikipedia contributor who's been around "for more than twenty years", per your user page, you demonstrate a surprising inability to understand simple prose. The whole of Netherzone's response is about the existence of vanity exhibitions. It is simply an affirmation that vanity exhibitions do exist; that is all. No mention of our subject, his exhibitions, or Israeli museums. Yet, you scold Netherzone for "making assumptions" about Slutzker. It seems you owe an apology. -The Gnome (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor, who is admin doesn't understand current consensus for artist Afd's. The idea that they have to invited by a gallery is complete nonsense. I don't know where that idea comes. A WP:BEFORE found nothing for what a established artist would need for an article. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'm not making assumptions, Zero, but perhaps you are? There are several editors here with long track records of work on articles about visual artists and and who have participated in many AfD's regarding the visual arts (myself included); and are very familiar with the associated notability criteria for artists. The track record of this artist is very slim, they are at the beginning stages of their career. I can say with certainty Slutzker does not meet NARTIST. This is not a reflection on Slutzker or their work or their potential, it is simply TOO SOON. The critical art historical analysis of his work is absent, which we normally see for notable artists. In a few years once they continue to build their career, they will probably be ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not now. The article can always be recreated in the future once he is further along and there is better sources available. Again, I'm not saying this to disrespect the artist nor dismiss his work. WP can't be directory or resource for promoting the hundreds of thousands (yes, that's correct) of artists in the world who have had a handful of shows. The article does not have encyclopedic value. Netherzone (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're back to our familiar non-argument: "Wikipedia already has many articles about artists with weaker notability evidence"! When will fellow editors understand that this is actually a proposal to move Wikipedia backwards? To make the encyclopaedia worse. -The Gnome (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we should be strengthening the integrity and rigor of the encyclopedia, not loosening our standards back to the early 2000s. Netherzone (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a long reply to the details, but then I deleted it. I have better things to do than argue against this snarkiness, illogic and OWNership. Readers judge Wikipedia by what it contains, not by what it is silent on. In my opinion Wikipedia would be better with this article than without it, and you have not established otherwise. Zero^talk 09:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the many exhibitions, books, and other presentations seem enough for notability to exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitions don't count. Anybody can hold an exhibition. What counts if the artists work is owned by a mainstream museum, which they are not. The books don't have any reviews. They are non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zero, the arguements convinced me that Slutzker's works are notable and meet the notability criteria. פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 00:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to failure of GNG. While there is one criteria of NARTIST that is met if you read it literally and narrowly, that same section says "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards....conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." This, for me, is one of those situations where the narrower SNG is delivering the wrong outcome that GNG expects. Daniel (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likely PROMO. There are no results to be found in Gnews; what's used in the article seems to be all there is. There is no listing in the Getty ULAN [10], telling me the artist isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NARTIST which lists as its fourth criterion only that "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." His work has been a substantial part of multiple significant exhibitions (coverage from the former Channel 10 (Israel)) as required by criterion 4b. It further appears exhibitions include Herzliya Museum of Contemporary Art, Israel Museum, and Tel Aviv Museum of Art. This interview describes him as "one of the most intriguing painters working in Israel today" (Google translation), this one from Yakum Tarbut mentions visiting another of his exhibits, and this one about his poetry (not sure about whether this one is a RS). In all, clear that he passes the WP:NARTIST bar and arguably also GNG but would likely require someone more versed in Hebrew to determine that. DCsansei (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links you present, DCsansei, consist of a press release announcement from the institution presenting the show therefore primary PR/PROMO; two previews based on press releases - they are not reviews, they are announcements for upcoming shows, therefore PR/PROMO; 4 is a database - back in the day we used to call these slide registries, where an artist can submit documentation of their work themselves - user-submitted or commercial gallery-submitted content; another is pure churnalism/advertorial content, thus PROMO. None of this is serious coverage. I'm not sure if the poetry one is a reliable source or more user-submitted content, it looks sort of bloggish.

All this "coverage" amounts to is that there seems to be a public relations campaign to promote the artist, which is not the same as notability or SIGCOV. Again, let me stress that my comments is not a critique the artist's potential or creativity or character whatsoever, I'm speaking from decades of experience in the field of visual arts. Some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria. There are no reviews, no chapters in art history books, no track record of his work being in multiple notable museum collections.This is an emerging artist with talent and potential for a successful career ahead of him, however, it is not the purpose of the encyclopedia to promote or advertise his work. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, you are repeating the same arguments you made above which I reviewed prior to concluding that this artist likely passes the bar set in NARTIST. While you can assert that "some of the editors here are misunderstanding the NARTIST criteria", perhaps we can assume that I read the discussion above (and am literate enough to come to a reasonable understanding of the NARTIST criteria) without going back and forth with the same points repeatedly? Also, note that one of the editors you assert is misunderstanding NARTIST above is an admin so hardly a case of inexperienced editors misapplying a policy. DCsansei (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And one of the delete voters is also an admin. Having said this, it does not matter if they are an admin or not, their !vote does not hold any more weight than any other editor. Netherzone (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. These two sources in the External links section,[11] and [12] seem the likeliest to count towards notability. Rupples (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupples, sorry, but I beg to differ.

Art Market Magazine (the first link in your message) is a pay-to-play publication. [13], [14], [15]. That is not how serious art magazines work, like ARTFORUM, Art in America, ArtNews, Domus, Frieze, Apollo, Art International, Modern Painters, Parkett, etc. with critical, analytical articles written by art historians. His work has not received coverage in any serious art magazine. Any artist or gallery can submit their work to Art Market Magazine, then pay a fee for space in the "magazine" once their work is "accepted" - in other words the artist or their gallery buys either half-page, whole page, 2-page spread, or "article" on their work. It's native advertising (sponsored content, branded journalism), it is an advertorial publication. It is analogous having a vanity gallery, and is not unlike predatory journal publishing in the academic world.

The second link is a modified press release - it is a preview to announce the show, it is NOT a review. It's advance marketing. It's written in future tense: "on March 12 the exhibition will be opened", etc. These types of press release-based previews are to advertise the product (the art) by the gallery. It's PR, PROMO - promotional advance advertising masquerading as journalism. This has become much more prevalent in recent years.

Again, this is not a reflection on the artist or their work, it is simply too soon in the artist's brief career for there to be serious SIGCOV on his work. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, missed that aspect of Art Market Magazine, so thanks for pointing it out. The Maariv source does provide a portrayal of the artist, but it's brief. Could be PR, not entirely sure, and in any event needs more coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jerusalem Post articles via Proquest give further coverage of Slutzker. This one counts towards notability.[16] His work being exhibited in two notable museums Herzliya & Tel Aviv MoA is indicative of notability. Would like to see coverage outside the Jerusalem Post. The other sources in the article/in this discussion don't cut it as far as notability is concerned, so as of now I'm neutral. Rupples (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human-oriented sexualism

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

COATRACK for fictosexuality, which is already itself a fringe topic with the article existing mainly as a massive advocacy page. In reality any sexuality peference that is directed at non-humans would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology, but these articles are built almost 100% without any actual clinical research, just opinion/"analysis" articles from dubious publications which seem intent on hijacking LGBT rethoric. The fictosexuality article may be fixed eventually with some work to reduce the obvious POV issues but I don't see how this article is anything but an undue weight spin-off. Both this an the main article have been created by the same editor, who very clearly seem to be a single purpose account which does nothing but link to these two articles and insert mentions of the subject in random pages.★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. this is fringe nonsense. ltb d l (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete

It's important to note that this article is a translation from Japanese, and there has been multiple research on this concept in Japanese, as indicated in the references. Academic research extends beyond clinical investigation to include philosophical or theoretical studies, which are not merely opinions. Furthermore, the sources for this article include peer-reviewed sociological qualitative research.

Since this is an article about discrimination, it is not neutral to assume it is “hijacking LGBT rhetoric,” despite multiple academic studies available.

Underestimating the research accumulation from non-English speaking countries is Western-centric. While the article of fictosexuality may display bias toward East Asian activist discourse, I believe this article is valuable as an informative piece on Japan. Zuzz22 (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is your second edit, the first being this fascinating edit to the article... ltb d l (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this idea does not have wide mainstream research in Japan either. It's a frine concept that has gotten some mentions as a curiosity. Using Japanese Wikipedia to push obscure sexual ideas had sadly become a trend recently. I've seen several attempts at translating bad Japanese Wikipedia articles into English for paraphilias because the obvious reality is that most English speaking editors do not read Japanese, so as long as the source look good and the langauge seems academic most editors leave it. It's an attempt at trickery.★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or maybe very limited merge?). This is claimed to be a term originating in the Japanese academic field of "fictosexuality studies". Oh dear. That seems to be a red link... Do we have any reason to believe that such a field even exists? So what about the term itself? I don't speak Japanese but Google Translate renders the Japanese article in a way that is shorter and more coherent than this one. Based on that translation, the subject of the article here is "anthropocentricism" (not Anthropocentrism) which it distinguishes from "interpersonalism". Google translates various phrases as "(thing) research" when it clearly means "research about (thing)", not actually intending to imply that it is a whole academic field or discipline. So, in addition to overstating its case, it is not even clear that the article is correctly named. I don't see a topic here in its own right. This seems like it is just fictosexuality being defined by its inverse. In my view this is already covered adequately in the fictosexuality article but I would not object to a very few sentences from this possibly getting merged there provided that they are well referenced. I wouldn't rule out very brief mentions in Heteronormativity and Amatonormativity provided that there are solid references to support inclusion in those specific places. Whatever we do, we must not be led astray by WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or dodgy translations. Most of all, we need to focus on what the Japanese academics actually say and avoid falling into western misinterpretations. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at very least merge. The topic has been studied in multiple scholarly sources, so it's hard for me to think that deletion would be appropriate. If the article is fringe and "advocacy" (which hasn't been proven), then it should be possible to find opposing sources and edit the content with opposing views to balance the coverage on the article. Until then, it can be marked as ((fringe)) without needing to delete it. Because this topic is closely associated with fictosexuality, I can also see a merge as a valid option. However, it's interesting that one of the allegations is a "would almost certainly be regarded as a paraphilia in mainstream psychology"; "would"? "almost certainly"? That doesn't seem to be an objective, concrete allegation — is it or not? Skyshiftertalk 14:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason there is little critical coverage is that this very idea is so new (and frankly absurd) that no serious researchers have bothered to actually study the concept. It's pretty much 100% POV pushing "scholarly" sources from obscure blogs and low quality "journals". Way too many of Wikipedias articles on sexuality are just filled with borderline oppinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science, and this and the fictosexuality articles are the worst offenders I think I've ever seen. This website has frankly become way too forgiving to advocacy pushing, even on LGBT topics (and I say this as a bisexual woman).★Trekker (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why did you add back on Wikidata that fictosexuality is a sexual orientation when the wide consensus is that sexual orientations refer only to sexual preferences for gender/sex of persons? It does not seem to me that that speaks to you being unbiased and objective on this subject.★Trekker (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What leads you to perceive this article as "100% POV" relying on "low-quality "journals"? For instance, The Japan Sociological Society (日本社会学会) is Japan's largest academic society for the social sciences, and the Japanese Sociological Review is the top journal of sociology in Japan. The Institute for Gender Studies at Ochanomizu University is run by Japan's most prestigious women's university, and its peer-reviewed journal, Gender Studies, enjoys wide readership among gender researchers in Japan. The Japanese Association of Social Problems (日本社会病理学会) and the Japan Sociological Association for Social Analysis (日本社会分析学会) are members of the Japan Consortium for Sociological Society, comprising major sociological societies in Japan. These journals are evidently reliable sources. As far as I know, Kazuki Fujitaka (藤高和輝) is a well-known queer researcher in Japan who has published several academic books. Masahiro Yamada is a renowned sociologist who has researched Japan's declining birthrate. Given the assessments of these researchers, it would be unfair to dismiss this article as "just filled with borderline opinion pieces from activists masquerading as soft science" simply because the concept is unfamiliar to non-researchers. Certainly, there is room for further improvement in this article, but that should be addressed by making additions and corrections to the article. Considering Wikipedia's guidelines, I don't believe this article should be deleted.

Gruebleener (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are little of what the article covers, it's not even clear that the translations here are accurate. Any of what they can say would be better said in the fictosexuality article, there is no independent notable subject here. ★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned information pertains to the sources supporting the essential content of this article. Additionally, Shin-yo-sha (新曜社) and Seibundo (成文堂) appear to be long-established academic publishers. I've made effort to improve the quality of the translation, and with the help of other editors, I hope it can be further refined.

Just as separate articles are created for topics like lesbian/gay and heteronormativity, fictosexuality and human-oriented sexualism should be addressed in distinct articles. Furthermore, given that "fictosexuality" is an English-speaking term and "human-oriented sexualism" is a concept originating from Japan, it seems more reasonable to maintain separate articles for each. Gruebleener (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no good reason to have a spin-off of an already fringe topic like this just because a few possibly reliable sources have mentioned it, it's still fringe. Soft sciences like sociology come up with new terms for obscure topics all the time, and even reliable sources sometimes publish junk science, especially lately as the publishing industry has become more and more money driven. Fictosexuality is in no reality comparable to homosexuality, which is a mainstream widely accepted phenomenon studied for all of human history, especially in science for the last century. You are very clearly a single purpose editor with activist/advocacy bias here.★Trekker (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something more rational to compare it to would be xenogenders, which also doesn't have it's own article as it's still a fringe idea that is not widely accepted in the scientific community (and yet far better researched than than this supposed identity).★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Woof. Didn't expect it but the article does seem to have sourcing needed to pass the notability threshold… The ((fringe)) seems appropriate and it should be made clear that this is a fringe idea including in Japan. DCsansei (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Discrimination. --MikutoH ^talk! 22:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fictosexuality. I agree that the sourcing here is adequate enough to reject outright deletion, but having a separate article lends WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe view that considering attraction between real humans to be the norm is somehow undesirable or discriminatory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sourcing in more depth... while trying to keep a straight face at all of this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fictosexuality or Nijikon § Human-oriented sexualism per Sjakkalle. I'm not opposed to keeping. --MikutoH ^talk! 18:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have strong feelings about this article but noting that while I understand @Sjakkalle and @MikutoH's arguments, WP:UNDUE is about how fringe ideas are represented within existing articles. In this case, the discussion is about whether there's sufficient sources to list have this standalone article which, as WP:UNDUE also notes, "Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth)." If the sourcing is adequate enough to reject deletion as Sjakkalle then it seems to me the article needs to be rewritten to appropriately describe a fringe viewpoint rather than deletion. DCsansei (talk) 09:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some decades back, Jimbo Wales gave an interpretation of how fringe views should be covered in relation to the NPOV policy, and one of those ideas, cited in the WP:UNDUE section of the NPOV policy is that "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." I believe that my "merge" vote above is firmly in line with this content policy. The viewpoint presented in this article, that considering attraction between real and non-fictional humans to be the norm is somehow discriminatory, is held by an extremely small minority. I would say it does not belong in Wikipedia, except that the sourcing makes me just about willing to accept accommodating the material in the ancillary article on Fictosexuality. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this article could be viewed as the ancillary article where it gets included but that's fair enough. DCsansei (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with fictosexuality, this topic is not in any way independent of the other. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, articles on sexuality and normativity are separated. For example, allonormativity and amatonormativity have separate articles from asexuality. In fact, this article covers topics beyond fictosexuality, including etymology and background, fan or otaku, law, intimacy and family.

Medtral

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company for medical tourism. Discussed at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board that it was set up by an SPA for promotional reasons. First AfD in 2009 closed as no consensus. Schwede 66 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Zealand. Schwede 66 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion for an apparently defunct company. The website listed in the article (www.medtral.com) is dead, and a search for Medtral on www.mercyascot.co.nz returns nothing. I was the nominator for the first AfD for this article.-Gadfium (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly promotional. Citations establish existence not notability. Appears to fail SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPA creation. A search on business.govt.nz indicates that Medtral Limited has been removed from the register and is thus defunct. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of a functioning website strongly supports deletion as the article appears promotional and lacks notability. Waqar💬 17:24, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hessburg

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article and subject does not seem notable, either for his music career or for his app designs. Can't find any significant coverage online and seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO InDimensional (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Computing, and Germany. InDimensional (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Conducted a BEFORE search and didn't find much we could use. Took a look at the previous AFD held in 2006, and the result was keep. All I'd say is Wikipedia was so much different back then. IMO those votes would not constitute an outright keep consensus today. X (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not really a wiki editor, so please bear with me if I'm drawing the wrong conclusions here. I came across this deletion discussion by accident after I noticed that the link to Chassalla is not active in the article about the label Eisenberg https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenberg_(music label) because the Chassalla article was deleted from Wikipedia. I'm from the same region as this band and I'm involved in the local gothic scene, so I know a lot about them.

First of all, you have to understand that Mark Hessburg was mainly musically active until the mid-90s and, as you quickly find out if you do a little googling, he later concentrated on film sound and game development after moving to Berlin.

There are inevitably no online articles from the period in which he was active as a musician, not even their record company SPV had an online presence at that time, as you can find out via the Internet Archive. As far as I know, there were only tours in the time before the last album. So there was no reason why there should have been any media articles about it in the 21st century.

As has already been mentioned here, Wikipedia was a completely different place at the time the article was posted than it is today. This also explains the lack of sources in the article.

He is also listed in the German National Library under the name Chassalla with a reference to the real name Mark Hessburg: https://d-nb.info/gnd/134828038

So I would suggest that the article on Mark Hessburg should be merged with the content of the deleted article on Chassalla. According to the guideline “Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability.” - In this case, perhaps only the other way around, as Mark Hessburg's creative field of activity obviously extends far beyond just music. However, musical creation alone is sufficient according to several points mentioned in the notability criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles

I cannot judge this for his other fields of activity, but there is also a lot to be found online.

But now to sources regarding notability:

Point 1 definitely applies:

Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

HNA - Hessisch Niedersächsische Allgemeine 29. October 1996 Page 10 – Review of the Album "Phoenix out of the ashes" https://www.meinehna.de/abo/content/archiv (paid)

Online you can also find this review as PDF, from the magazine EB/METRONOM No. 42 - March/April 1993 page 57: http://subkultur-ost.de/EB-Metronom%2042-93%20(Koeln)%20Fanzine%20%60931.pdf

I also remember that there were several reviews in magazines, among others in the most important medium of the scene “Zillo”, but I only have one review in the probably second most important magazine “Orkus Musik Magazin” September 1996 page 44 with the review of the album “Phoenix out of the ashes”.

Considering that the last album came out 28 years ago and the genre is a subculture that is nowhere near as popular and important today as it was in the early 1990s, I find it amazing that you can still find something internationally, even if only on some webzines or online marketplaces where the used CDs are sold, but it clearly shows that the project had definitely achieved a relevant, international level of awareness at the time. e.g. here:

https://www.darkside.ru/album/12605/

https://www.hmv.co.jp/artist_Chassalla_000000000366218/item_Phoenix-Out-Of-The-Ashes_2557117

https://www.stereoid.cz/chassalla-phoenix-out-of-the-ashes-cd/

https://winyle.com.pl/kasety/5020082-chassalla-phoenix-out-of-the-ashes.html

You also find used CDs of him worldwide on eBay.

Point 5 also seems to apply:

Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

The debut album is available in the German National Library. The entry shows that the CD was released on the Apollyon Rekordings label, a sub-label of Apollyon (90 records released) and was distributed via EFA Medien (A huge company with more than 10,000 records released)

From this link https://d-nb.info/353035785 and the archived Chassalla website from 1999 (under “History”) https://web.archive.org/web/19991007024618/http://www.hessburg.de/chassalla/index.html it is also clear that the project is not a band in the classic sense, but rather a solo project in which different musicians have probably worked together time and again, as on the second album.

https://www.discogs.com/de/label/43832-Apollyon-Rekordings?page=1

https://www.discogs.com/de/label/25914-Apollyon?page=1

https://www.discogs.com/de/label/2444-EFA?page=1

Mark Hessburg's second album was released by Oblivion, a sub-label (250 titles released) of SPV GmbH (one of the largest independent record labels in the world, with more than 13,000 albums released). It was released by Eisenberg / Warner-Chappell Music and produced by Eisenberg's owner Carlos Perón, a founding member of the famous band Yello. https://subculturerecords.bandcamp.com/album/phoenix-out-of-the-ashes-remastered

https://www.discogs.com/de/label/96109-SPV-GmbH?page=1

In addition, material by Mark Hessburg has been released on various compilations by well-known labels such as ZYX or the compilation label “Double Power” by Sony Music, together with world-famous artists such as Vangelis, Jean-Michel Jarre, Alan Parsons, Klaus Schulze, Ofra Haza.

https://www.discogs.com/de/artist/142930-Chassalla?superFilter=Appearances

https://www.allmusic.com/album/mystic-spirits-vol-8-mw0000550889

https://www.allmusic.com/album/best-of-beyond-the-skies-mw0000403718

Point 6 also seems to apply:

Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

He also wrote a popular track for the 1994 album Intimacy by the Canadian wave/synthy pop band Psyche and performed with them at several concerts. The band was extremely successful in the scene, especially in the late 80s and early 90s, and as Anne Clark's support band they also became a name to audiences outside the scene.

http://www.psyche-hq.de/history.html

https://www.allmusic.com/album/legacy-mw0000403961

Johannes Häusler, who was involved in the Chassalla project, was also a member of Psyche. Another musician, Christian Rossbach, was later a member of Madre del Vizio. A well-known italo gothic rock band https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madre_del_Vizio

Point 7 possibly applies:

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.

In the early 90s, Chassalla was one of the few music projects from this scene in the greater Kassel area and was mentioned several times in the local media such as HNA and Infotip. Of course, this only exists on paper in old publications and not online.

As for the rest of his career:

Almost all the sound design projects listed here are well-known in Germany and from the major TV channels. https://www.crew-united.com/de/Mark-Hessburg_285998.html on IMDB you can also find international titles such as Paris Hilton's Simple Life or Om Shanti Om with Shah Rukh Khan.

So the claim to work as a sound designer is also proven.

If you make the effort, you will also find out that he ran the Green-Hill Studio in Kassel https://green-hill.de with the later producer of the famous German rapper Prinz Pi. You have to combine these three sources

https://www.hna.de/kultur/hiphop-gemacht-2962664.html

https://www.discogs.com/de/release/164059-RAS-Rhythmic-Altered-State

https://www.allmusic.com/album/rhythmic-altered-state-mw0000221647#credits

You can also find the connection to the Algerian world musician Hamid Baroudi from Dissidenten via this link. https://www.allmusic.com/artist/mark-hessburg-mn0002004719#credits

A list of references on its website also includes several successful mobile game titles, such as Atlantic Fleet and Sky Gamblers https://www.hessburg.com/references.html

Press mentions as a game developer, which you can find quite quickly

BZ (Axel Springer Verlag) https://www.bz-berlin.de/archiv-artikel/news-50

https://www.iphoneincanada.ca/2011/02/14/preview-wolves-of-the-atlantic-for-iphone-submarine-sim/

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-flare-path-topical-titbits#more-355119

https://deutscher-marinebund.de/service/u-995-kompass-app/

https://web.archive.org/web/20140609061555/https://www.pockettactics.com/news/ios-news/long-way-tipperary-wolves-atlantic-ambitious-u-boat-sim-youve-ever-seen/

https://www.148apps.com/news/wota-uboat-compass-wets-appetite-wota-wolves-atlantic/

https://de.paperblog.com/wota-wolves-of-the-atlantic-weltkriegs-u-boot-simulation-fur-ios-und-desktop-pc-fakten-und-features-ins-deutsche-ubersetzt-860990/

Incidentally, the rough content of the deleted Chassalla article can still be found online in a similar version, which would be a good start for expanding the article.: https://www.last.fm/music/Chassalla/+wiki 2003:C4:C70B:274E:19BA:543C:1764:8CF6 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2003:C4:C70B:274E:19BA:543C:1764:8CF6 Thank you for your participation in this discussion. For the record, I'll stand by my previous opinion. X (talk) 07:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Blackham

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously survived AfD when criteria was less strict for his 'client list', however notability is not inherited and I don't see much individual notability for this mastering engineer. Additionally the article has been edited multiple times by the subject which is a conflict of interest. InDimensional (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. InDimensional (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaman Abiola

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

Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and generally WP:GNG. Sources are either announcing him as new editor-in-chief of Legit.ng, passing mentions or dependent on the subject. Being Reuters-trained, or working with other Nigerian media outlets, etc, isn't a credible claim of notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even though notability is not inherited, Rahaman's contribution to the media space is evident here as his writings are used as a reference to several Wikipedia articles. As a known journalist, Rahaman is seen working for notable media houses like Legit.ng, Medium, Sahara Reporters, Nigerian Tribune, TheCable, Tuko, YNaija, BusinessDay Nigeria, The Media Online, Dubawa, Business Post Nigeria, The Paradigm and Theindustry.ng as seen on his verified Muck Rack page here. He is recognized by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, these do not automatically confer GNG or JOURNALIST on him. For the former, there are several journalists whose publications in the media are being used on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make them notable. for the latter, these are all his employers/clients, etc, and still doesn't count towards GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Vanderwaalforces, the entity passes criteria 1 of WP:NJOURNALIST as he is cited as a source for most Wikipedia pages as stated earlier. That alone confirms his notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siagoddess (talk • contribs) 23:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biscuit warmer

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

No suitable sources. Only source is an online shop selling the product. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this item has a long history. There are any number of auction catalogs, and there are probably examples in the collections of multiple museums. There's a good likelihood that it is covered in books about antique sterling, silverplate, tableware. Unfortunately I'm not easily finding them online with previews. I think this might require a trip to an actual library. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aboli

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aboli

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

Fails WP:GNG. Recreated by likely SOCK after prior deletion discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violin Sonata in B minor

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

This disambiguation page is redundant of Sonata in B minor, which was originally at this title before a page move. The redirect was then reverted. The two sonatas listed here are already covered at Sonata in B minor (a broader disambiguation page). Additionally, one of the sonatas listed here (Sonata in B minor (Atterberg)) is only a partial-title match because it is generically for strings, not solely for violin. I propose restoring the redirect. I am also nominating the following page for redirecting as well since it is also redundant:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Men's Roller Derby

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT and has for 14 years. A search in news returns the coveted "1 result". Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Rahim Khan

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

At first glance, this appears to be a legit BLP - however, upon closer examination of each referenced source, it becomes evident that they merely mention the subject without providing sig./in-depth coverage. Consequently, the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in both WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Television, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is not described as journalist and should not be measured in WP:JOURNALIST.

Subject is described as a lawyer and falls under Notability of attorneys guildeline provided in Wikipedia:Notability (law), which says 3-4 factors are sufficent. Subject meets more than that. From the guideline:

"To be a notable attorney, a person must have notable accomplishments as an attorney, backed up by references that are reliable. These accomplishments include:

trying a notable case, which has its own article in Wikipedia

3 cases are on wiki

being recognized as an expert in a specialized area of law (see Mark Zaid and John S. Lowe)

NPOV reliable sources, Al Jazeera etc mention he is constitutional expert, coverage in The Economist on SC constitutional cases

service as a law clerk at SCOTUS or having clerked for another famous judge.

Clerked for Chief Justice/famous judge

service in an administrative capacity in a major court system agency (example, clerk of a Federal court, chief court administrator).

Clerk at Lahore high court, which in US terms is a federal court

service as a general counsel of a large state or federal agency (example, secretary of state or transportation authority).

Attorney General office Pakistan

Also partially meets

teaching at an accredited college or law school, as a chairman or tenured associate or full professor (preferably a distinguished professor per WP:PROF)"

The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, Maintains a NPOV. Also in WP:GNG at least two referenced sources are in-depth with sig coverage and most are not in passing, with consistent coverage in the news over many years. Retinscn20 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not referencing a policy but a personal essay. How about I create a essay too outlining the criteria of WP:YOUTUBER, stating that one must have at least 100,000 subscribers to qualify for a WP BLP? I fear we'd end up with at least 300,000 new BLPs in just one day. And please refrain from misleading. The BLP lacks proper sourcing, contains WP:OR and in fact is WP:PROMO. You've to provide the references, which discuss the subject in depth as required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 10:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I did not call it a policy. I called it a guideline. I am not misleading the discussion by pointing out that you have put this under WP:JOURNALIST, which the subject is not. You have not responded to this. We can have this discussion without being personal as WP:GD says.

Your point is understood that the guideline is not considered policy. It is still however a reasonable understanding of notability for attorneys, not journalists. If you would like to keep this to WP:GNG, that states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Significant coverage has been stated in independent sources directly discussing the subject here ^[1] here ^[2] here ^[3]. And more than a trivial mention has been included in leading publications Al Jazeera, Economist, Dawn. If not, rather than deleting it immediately, article can be improved to address concerns you have, which you said fits BLP criteria at first glance. Cheers. Retinscn20 (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Fry, this isn't a guideline either. It's simply a personal essay as I stated previously. So, if you intend to assess this based on WP:GNG, I'm disappointed to inform you that the first two sources (this and this) are not acceptable as they are not considered WP:RS. Even the Tribune piece is just a column, lacking sig/in-depth coverage on the subject. Hence, it clearly fails to meet WP:GNG and doesn't even come close to passing WP:N. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Working lawyer that practices in a high court, but still nothing for notability. Sourcing is either about the cases where this person is mentioned in passing, or written by the subject. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Lionetta

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced article, nothing of notability in the text and no coverage online. InDimensional (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I did a quick search on La Stampa's historical archive (which I highly recommend) and it returned a few hits: 1, an interview dated July 1982, on the release of their second album; 2, a short profile dated November 1982; 3, a concert profile dated June 1999 (which makes me wonder why the article says they broke up in 1987). There's also a profile on the website of Buccheri's council website (it looks dated, but it is the council website!). To me, these results suggest there are likely sufficient offline/historical sources to sustain an article. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add the Buccheri profile link: it's here! On reflection, this seems to be part of an advertisement for a 2004 concert, so I don't think it can contribute to establishing notability as a non-independent source, assuming the council had any involvement in the concert. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google Books seems to return some hits/mentions in the context of Italian folk revival music; this seems indicative of a longer profile as a book chapter. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those sources do not adequately support notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources newspaper and book sources identified above by Ignatius that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Onouye

AfDs for this article:

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

Writing a few non-notable books doesn't really make you notable, especially as not scientific or media sources seem to exist. It's been 14 years since the issue has been raised. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. I missed this, but the first nomination closed as no consensus. Frankly, I feel the delete case is stronger here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I still don't see anything we could use for sourcing, same as the last time this came to AfD in January. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete as per points raised by Allan Nonymous below. Qflib (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC) Keep. As I mentioned last time: "the page needs improvement but should be kept. This is an educator who has spent most of his professional career in architectural practice in an impactful way within the city of Seattle; see C7 of WP:NPROF...a distinguished chair and an annual studio have been named in his honor at the University of Washington, which are closely connected to C5 of WP:NPROF." This last has to be highlighted; an R1 university has established a named chair in his honor. That doesn't happen every day. Usually it happens as a memorial after someone passes away (he's still kicking) or the individual himself makes a donation to fund the chair (no evidence of that). The subject is academically notable and the page should be expanded on, not deleted.Qflib (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C7, is a pretty clear fail, given his lack of any news articles, and uh... the endowed chair seems to have been a donation by a former student of his [17], so not sure that really fits C5. Allan Nonymous (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That being the case, I’ll change my recommendation. Qflib (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be. I thought the name chair would be important but not for a former student. scope_creep^Talk 09:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Securian Canada

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

The subsidiary doesn't seem notable. This page can be a redirect to Securian Financial Group. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are separate business entities with separate governance structures from what I can tell and have reference on the Government of Canada website when I was digging around for references. While they share a name, I don't think the connection is that strong beyond that, seems like a worthwhile distinction for people who want to recognize the two entities especially when they have separate reputations (Securian Canada for example has poor reviews vs US which seems to be neutral). Brendanphilp (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I used to work for them, so I'll avoid this discussion. But yes, most of this is correct, they did insurance for Sears Canada, Hudson's Bay and Capital One (credit insurance and direct marketing items). Used to be the direct marketing division of JC Penney, then it was sold to Aegon, then sold again. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage here [18] and here [19]. Then here [ https://www.dmnews.com/penney-sells-dm-services-to-aegon/]. The article now seems to gloss over most of their history, which was "colourful" to be generous. A proper article on the company here should at least include the JC Penney and Aegon history. I've poked around the Canadian company's website, they're the subsidiary of the US Securian; they also tend to gloss over that for the same reasons I've outlined. They sell insurance using non-traditional methods (again, I'm trying to be diplomatic, but it seems to be about the same quality as when I was there in the JC Penney days), and even then, it was direct marketing/telemarketing, with all the "fun" that comes with that. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I think the JC Penney references are worth including if that's the case. I think maybe the tactics they use should be omitted unless we can reference that somehow like a newspaper article etc. I'll have a poke around again if there's anything I can reference around that but I didn't see anything on the first pass for including as a "controversy" section so to speak. Brendanphilp (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I've dug into it a bit over my morning coffee, it looks like maybe we're confusing two entities. What I can find here is Securian Canada used to be Canadian Premier Life, not JC Penney or Aegon. I did find this: https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ which has a same parent company that was purchased but they look like two separate entities in that deal. Maybe still worth referencing. Brendanphilp (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think given the above additional, that it's worthy of its own listing compared to rolled up into US parent. If it makes sense to add the https://www.advisor.ca/industry-news/industry/cpp-owned-wilton-re-buys-transamericas-canadian-business/ article to help add some context about these acquisitions, I think that would be helpful.

I haven't personally been able to find external sources to validate the JC Penney part of the discussion or their "business practices" Oaktree b referenced but if someone finds something, happy to include as well.

Let me know your thoughts! Brendanphilp (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amilcar Ferreira

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources are mostly dependent and passing mentions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Economics, and Paraguay. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Its not just mentions, its entire interviews on national newspapers that are considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia.Jeanette la Perdida Martin(que?) 21:00 3 May, 2024 (UTC)
- I humbly disagree with your take. Interviews by him on reliable sources do not count towards WP:GNG because they are not independent of the subject. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - a click here : https://www.google.com/search?q=amilcar+ferreira+economista&rlz=1CAUFPX_enUS1089&oq=amilcar+ferreira&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39j0i22i30l3j69i60l3.5623j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#ip=1 confirms he is notable,m while a click on news here shows no links but only because it searches for "Amilcar Ferreira - Wikipedia".Jeanette 20 years inventing nicknames Martin(que?) 22:48 3 May, 2024 (UTC)

Mateo Perillo

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Uruguayan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions (2022, 2023, 2024, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players Struggling to find coverage, but from other Uruguayan player examples it has been difficult to find online sources, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Bablu Sharma

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

Fails WP:NPOL and generally fails WP:GNG. Zero out of the current sources provide WP:SIGCOV, hence, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The politician who has never been elected as an MLA or MP. Holding a position as a municipal councilor doesn't meet the criteria outlined in WP:NPOL. Moreover, the cited sources lack reliability and fail to provide in-depth coverage of the individual which eventually fails WP:GNG. Grabup (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Iruleguy

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Uruguayan rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It seems like he made a single appearance for his respective national team in 2020 and he no longer plays on any club team. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Uruguay. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Uruguay national rugby union players Struggling to find coverage, but from other Uruguayan player examples it has been difficult to find online sources, redirect is a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thushar Vellappally

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

Fails WP:NPOL, coverage seems to relate to his candidacy in the current Indian election. No sourcing to support claims of being a philanthropist. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Kerala. AusLondonder (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election for his constituency is completed on April 24, 2024 and this is not for the election. Just starting the page for adding more information. He is a notable politician and lot of political controversies are reported in the news. Links are added.(talk)

Delete: Similar to other adfs, there has been a proliferation of premature articles regarding candidates for the 2024 Indian General Elections. Like this individual, they too fall short of meeting the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Since they have not yet been elected as Members of Parliament, the news reports solely focus on their candidacy. Some similar other AFDs: Kompella Madhavi Latha and Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable politican, fails WP:NPOL, can be re-evaluated if candidate gains place in legislature to satisfy the presumed qualities of NPOL. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
more citation is added to indicate the notability. Mettleboy (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain : More reference were added to emphasize the notability. Mettleboy (talk)

Delete This page is an election candidate only, no proof of victory, and does not specify otherwise, Fails WP:POLITICIAN~~ Spworld2 talk 01:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ashar Asghar

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

on the face of it, it appear that the subject has directed some dramas, but those dramas themselves don't appear to be WP:N, which suggests that this person fails to meet WP:DIRECTOR. The reference cited in this BLP are either unreliable or don't mention the subject at all, contradicting what the SPA Ritajon (talk · contribs) claimed when they created this BLP. A quick Google search also yields not much, indicating a failure to meet the basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FinePix Z5fd

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

Not sure this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect with Fujifilm FinePix. There seems to be a lot of cleanup needed for that line of cameras, though. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MUN TV

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

The coverage is not in depth or significance, failing to meet the basic WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital

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

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, delete.
Crosji (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anoosha Syed

AfDs for this article:

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

So back in 2019, this BLP was a nom. for deletion and the consensus was to move this BLP to the draft NS, but it wasn't executed. Five years have passed since then. Upon conducting a quick Google search, it seems that the subject still doesn't meet the basic WP:GNG. Most of her work doesn't meet the standards for WP:N so she fails WP:NCREATIVE as well. Despite receiving Asian/Pacific American Awards for Literature, it's not adequate to establish WP:N. Therefore, it seems appropriate to proceed with deletion for now. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and Canada. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article; it clearly fails to meet WP:N --Crosji (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anoosha Syed has had a number of books published by large presses, with reviews of these works in places such as Publishers Weekly (link 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6), Kirkus Reviews (links 1, 2, 3 plus more here), School Library Journal (starred review plus more on site, along with being covered in articles such as this one), and more than a hundred other reviews that can be found through the Wikipedia Library. In addition, there are articles and interviews focused on the subject and her works such as these (link 1 and 2). And that is not even all of the coverage out there. Syed easily meets the WP:Author notability guidelines as a creative professional who has "won significant critical attention." --SouthernNights (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SouthernNights explanation above. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and the rationale presented by SouthernNights. Lots of book reviews. Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Alberto Villarruz College

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

Former school with little to no coverage. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Roxas_City#Education per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Miyanji

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

She doesn't appears to meet WP:GNG beause the press coverage she received in WP:RS lacks significance or depth which does not satisfy WP:N. N-Peace Award alone may not confer WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana

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

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Cultural Complex And Museum

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

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masjid Eid Gah

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

Seems fails to meet WP:NBUILDING as well basic WP:GNG —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON. 103.151.0.166 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of college sports team nicknames in North America

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

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of WP:RS. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, Canada, United States of America, and North America. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think there's a corresponding article, but college teams' nicknames is certainly a notable topic discussed by a variety of sources. Sources include [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]. Reywas92^Talk 14:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In North America though? Let'srun (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, delete the ones in Canada and Mexico if you want a US-focused list. I don't see the point of that though. Reywas92^Talk 18:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have U Sports#Conferences & members and List of Mexican collegiate American football programs for Canada and Mexico respectively. I do not expect the remaining North American countries to have significantly notability, WP:LISTN, for navigational purposes. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So shorten this list to be the US ones. I think this is a valid navigational list for that at least. Reywas92^Talk 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of college team nicknames in the United States exists already. Conyo14 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had searched but didn't see that. I would support a merge, but I do like how this is sorted by type and with the length this is a rare instance that keeping separate (or even merging the alphabetical list to this one) would be appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Spiegel

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

I can find nothing to indicate they pass WP:NBASIC or WP:GNG. They appear to be just another politician who stood for election but were not elected. There is no Finnish article or any mentions on Finnish Wikipedia of them that I can find. There used to be a Russian version but that was deleted. KylieTastic (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, Finland, and Russia. KylieTastic (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:NPOL. Just being an unelected candidate for office does not guarantee notability. I cannot find enough independent, substantive coverage about the subject. Fails Wikipedia:GNG. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MailHippo

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

Deprod by IP. Deletion reason still stands. The Yahoo Finance ref is a press release, the other sources are likewise either primary and nonindependent, blogs, or both. I have performed searches in EBSCO, Gale and ProQuest and have not been able to locate any sources suitable for WP:NCORP, it is likely that it is simply WP:TOOSOON for any significant coverage to exist. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, Software, and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can only find regular business listings such as Crunchbase. Nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Schäfer

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

Fails WP:NPOL for not being the MP, and fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO generally. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Germany. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being an unsuccessful election candidate nor being organizational chair of a minor political party constitutes an automatic notability freebie that would guarantee a Wikipedia article — but this is referenced almost entirely to directly-affiliated primary sources that are not support for notability, and the only citation to media is just a photograph of him rather than a news article about him, and this isn't adding any GNG points either. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As already ruled out by User:Espresso Addict a chair of an party with over thousands of member was, is and will constitutes an automatic notability. I find it especially disturbing that the person who opened the deletion called Lasse as an 'unsuccessful election candidate', clearly breaking the political neutrality of wikipedia. Additionally this deletion request comes now few weeks before the EU election fueling my suspicion. With that in mind, if one criticises the neutrality of the references, that's fine but its no reason to delete the article in question. G Utopia (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As @G Utopia already mentioned, this party is very active with more than 2000 members in every federal state of Germany, even though they haven't won any elections yet. The current election for the European Parliament also runs until the 9th of July, and it feels wrong to delete an article of a candidate and chairman of a party that is currently running in democratic elections. Mcaraggiu (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not exist to be a repository of campaign brochures for current candidates. We're writing history here, not news, so the basis for an article is not "is he in the current news cycle today?" — it's "has he achieved something that people will still be looking for information about in the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s?"
So we have an established consensus that a person has to win the election and thereby hold the office to become encyclopedically notable as a politician, and simply being a candidate in an election to an office that the person has not already held in the past does not constitute permanent notability in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete leaders of political parties must pass GNG since there is no assumption they will have been reported on as a member of a democratically elected legislature, and he does not. Most of the links are to the party's page, and the one that isn't is a link to an under 14 basketball team showing he is the trainer. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Party of Humanists, where he is mentioned, and which is the context where people would want to gain information about him. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports teams named Trojans

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

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for navigational purposes as a split from Trojan (disambiguation). Someone searching "Trojans" is likely looking for a sports team, given that it is a popular mascot. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources cited, let alone any that discuss the topic of the list as a group. I can find user wikis and database-type articles listing teams named Trojans but nothing close to RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trojan, keeping only those entries whose teams have dedicated articles. Otherwise this doesn't meet WP:NLIST and opens up a WP:PANDORA's box of similar lists. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not an article that meets WP:LISTN in its own regard. For navigation purposes, only the sports teams or college sports that use the name more notably such as USC Trojans and the non-scholastic teams should be placed into the DAB page. Conyo14 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable grouping -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tappytoon

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

This article about a Web fails Wikipedia:Notability (Web); Because it did not meet the conditions for notability. The company's history, adaptation, awards and nomination, etc. were not introduced. Also, there are no articles that can attract attention. It should be deleted or redirected to the list of webtoon sites in Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and South Korea. Hkm5420 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lots of reliable sources have covered TappyToon in their online publications. See The Escapist, Heidi MacDonald's The Beat, BusinessKorea (not personally familiar with it tho), Yahoo, plus release listings like The Korea Herald and The Mary Sue. Are there problems with the sources available here? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 19 April 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) 12:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Haven’t done a BEFORE check yet, but every source shared by Maplestrip other than the Escapist is a reprinted press release Mach61 13:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Micro (text editor)

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

Besides one potentially WP:RS on the article, I wouldn't consider this article to pass WP:GNG. "[D]esigned around simplicity and ease of use" also makes the article quite promotional. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The promotional wording wasn't intentional. Anyhow in the context of WP:NSOFT, having 20k stars on GitHub and coverage in Linux Magazine and many other FOSS-focused sites makes it notability imo. Wqwt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has decent coverage in Linux Magazine, ItsFoss, HowToGeek, and MakeUseOf. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Jams

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Popcornfud (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added plenty of sources. I don't get what your problem is. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few more. – Dyolf87 (talk) 16:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources you added are fan sites, which can't be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia.

The others only mention in passing the fact that David Gilmour recorded some jams in a barn a while ago. That isn't sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG — we need "significant coverage in reliable sources". Popcornfud (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to David Gilmour: Some reliable sources included, but the mentions of these sessions are very limited. There's enough that it would be worth including on Gilmour's page (which does not currently mention this), but not nearly enough for a standalone article, especially after cutting out all the fansite/unreliable coverage.

And Dyolf87, while it's great that you care about this article and brough a number of sources to it, your edit summary comment "because Popcornfud is acting like a baby" is not gonna fly. Stop that. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit of detail about the barn jams to the David Gilmour article. I agree it's worthy of mention but I don't see this amounting to more than a couple of sentences of coverage based on what we have in reliable sources. Popcornfud (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively) to David Gilmour - First, as far as I can tell the title Barn Jams has never been used to encapsulate these recordings as a group. The sources typically say something like "recorded during a jam in a barn at Gilmour's house", while "Barn Jam" has been added to the titles of a few tracks that were released later. So there is no precise item called Barn Jams to qualify for an encyclopedic article of its own. However, the jams in the barn have been documented as providing tracks for multiple Gilmour albums so that can be described at his page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masaaki Ueki

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

Has been on the list of articles not meeting WP:NBIO for 14 years. A bare number of sources (two) ~~and no corresponding Japanese article~~ strongly suggest he does not meet WP:GNG in addition to clearly failing WP:NSPORT. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I haven't had a chance to do any sort of research so not ready to give an opinion yet. However, I am leaning keep simply on the basis that there's little reason to believe that OP did a WP:BEFORE search that included Japanese-language sources. If he had, he would have quickly run across the corresponding Japanese-language article which the nomination asserts does not exist. DCsansei (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OOPS! WP:TROUT moment for me here. I copied the name listed in the article, which (had a space) at the time. The article did not have a space, so I missed it and assumed there wasn't an article. I've struck that from the nom. Looking at that article, there's only one source and its WP:ABOUTSELF, so I think the nom is still good, at least. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I haven't been able to turn up much of anything here. It's odd given what's seemingly verifiable about his importance within Karate as head of Japan Karate Association but not much in the way of coverage of any of that. I don't want to !vote delete since I think the odds that there are sources offline in Japanese are very high but can't demonstrate that at this point. DCsansei (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Japan Karate Association which he is chief instructor of [37]. There likely is enough to write a biography of Ueki but I don't have access to Japanese newspaper archives (which are largely not digitized). Fwiw, likely that this book published by Kodansha by one of his contemporaries in JKA covers him. There is this coverage of his visit to New Zealand. Would not be opposed to keeping and happy to revisit if more is found. DCsansei (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Davis

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. Co-founder of Rolex. Article is basically just tidbits of Rolex history with mentions of him. Half of the small amount of material in the article is Rolex history that doesn't even mention him. The same with sources; there are no sources on him much less GNG sources. I did a search with the same results. Rolex history with just mentions of him in that context. Article was prodded by others in October and de-prodded by creator. During NPP work I did a merge/redirect into Rolex (there was no real material to merge) and creator reversed that. I don't think that the creator understands wp:notability; I left a note on their talk page explaining that it's about coverage. North8000 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This book: [38] might have something, but I don't have access to it. The two sources cited in the article don't seem to be RS. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rolex. No notability independent of the company. Nothing in Internet Archive or newspapers.com beyond the basic fact of having founded the company with Wilsdorf. Jfire (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV2 Stars

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

Non-notable. There doesn't really appear to be anything to be said about this subject. toweli (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and New Zealand. toweli (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced article that does not demonstrate any notability. The "I got 2 babe" network ID promo receives mostly trivial mentions in one or two independent sources of varying reliability I found on Google. The group is not specifically named in any of these. There is nothing of substance here to warrant a standalone article. The network promo itself could probably be covered by a single sentence in the articles for TVNZ or the "Other media" section of I Got You Babe. Dfadden (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Network promo campaigns are incredibly unnotable and since this didn't even have the perfunctory charitable aim to get everyone together, the song isn't even notable. We've long killed mention of promo slogans and campaigns in network articles (for the most part the crufters who insist this is important have moved onto Fandom) and a mention on the song's article would be as equally pointless. Nate • (chatter) 19:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, fair enough. I'm not here to debate the notability of the promo, I just found several articles in independent sources that discussed it, as opposed to nothing at all about TV2 Stars. I'm firmly in favour of deleting this article. Dfadden (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Nu Tau

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

Highly promotional and unencyclopedic. Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. 18:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC). AusLondonder (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article continues to be improved even after winning an earlier Deletion prod that was offered, where the vote was to keep it. I fully disagree with the OP's statement that the article is "promotional" and "non-encyclopedic". It is modeled after a number of acceptable, similar Start-class articles that the Fraternity and Sorority Project continues to support and improve. The rush to delete such random Greek-letter organization articles, without a comprehensive process or rationale is harmful to Wikipedia. We track these societies, which number some 500,000, providing articles for those few who show notability with continued existence for ten years or more, and which have a regional or national presence of at least three chapters. This approach is consistent with major reference sources for this category that pre-date Wikipedia for 135 years, and which after long discussion and consensus building here, we follow. I do not know why the OP didn't alert the F&S Project of the AfD, but I have corrected that omission. Jax MN (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need secondary source coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found and added a secondary source that provides significant coverage. That should suffice for proof of notability. I also did a quick copy edit that removed some of the content that was copied from their website. It is a member of the Professional Fraternity Association, making it a legitimate organization. I have not looked through campus newspapers, but am confident that more non-fraternity sources can be found based on the locations of its chapters. Rublamb (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This is why editors should not concentrate on scoring Prods. Especially things like frats and radio stations, most would find, or already have, adequate sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G. E. Kidder Smith

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBIO, only sources that I could find is one book from 2022 [39] (already cited extensively in the article, and authored in part by is grandson), and his obituary [40] in the NYT. Most of the contents of the article were added by one IP and do not look verifiable. His son Hopkinson Smith looks notable though. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Photography, Military, Alabama, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Guggenheim Fellowship and an obituary (not paid death notice) in the New York Times should be enough by themselves. But (unsurprisingly for a prominent author of many books) there are also many book reviews to be found]. I found and added 28 published reviews of 8 books (multiple reviews for each), giving him an overwhelming pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the impressive expansion by David Eppstein. Aintabli (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per NAUTHOR. Thanks to David Eppstein for his work to find sources. --hroest 16:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - David Eppstein's work well establishes notability beyond any doubt. LadyofShalott 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove bus route 6

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

Non-notable bus route. WP:Run-of-the-mill applies here. --wooden superman 11:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing notable about this bus route. Athel cb (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—non-notable and failed WP:GNG. If deletion here is the outcome, then the following (Brighton & Hove bus route 1, Brighton & Hove bus route 2, Brighton & Hove bus route 5, Brighton & Hove bus route 7, Brighton & Hove Coaster routes, Brighton & Hove Breeze routes) also need to be nominated because the sourcing is at the same level. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same, but picked this one as a "test" as I wasn't sure I wasn't missing something. --wooden superman 09:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi all, I created this article and the other ones and I wasn't sure if they'd pass for notability but after looking at other articles, namely the 100+ that are in Category:Bus routes in London, many of which are at a similar level of notability, I thought I'd at least create them and see. If anyone can add anything to them that would be great, but I haven't been able to find many decent sources. harrz ^talk 20:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Brighton & Hove (bus company) per WP:CHEAP. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rogério dos Santos (footballer)

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

No evidence of notability found, source is database only, Prod removed with statement that he received a yellow card for Kaunas which is not really adressing the issue at hand. A search didn't immediately provide better sources, but perhaps with different search terms better results can be had. Article in any case needs thorough cleanup, stating that he "plays" for a club which folded in 2012 is slightly outdated at best. Fram (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Lithuania, and Brazil. Fram (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per lack of WP:SIGCOV. The player's career is mostly unknown (ogol.com, Soccerway). Svartner (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram:. It just means you should point out Rogério, as a footballer, pass this or not: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (sports). I simply don't have time to check Kaunas was a fully professional team or not, but at least some indication he has played for that league. While for SIGCOV, a lot of footballer even played in fully professional team in fully professional league, don't have SIGCOV. Matthew hk (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About two years ago, the "played in a professional league = automatically notable" rule has been rejected at an RFC, and football players now need SIGCOV to be kept. Fram (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment inb4 Transfermarkt is user generated, but they're usually comprehensive on things, and they say he retired in 2009 after three games for Kaunas. If anyone knows enough about Lithuanian data to verify this, the bloke is not notable at all. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National University station

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

Neither source cited mentions a station with this name. Source 2 is also deprecated per WP:AOPLACES. I could not find other sources online. Please redirect this page to Line 1, Ho Chi Minh City Metro. Toadspike (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)

2. This is, in fact, a different station from Vietnam National University station in Hanoi. Toadspike (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is Listed as Generaly Unreliable not Depracated. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my apologies. I didn't find out exactly which one the red symbol meant before publishing that comment. Toadspike (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam National University station

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

The only source cited doesn't mention this station at all, could not find any others online. Please redirect to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) Toadspike (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. A reminder that train stations are not presumed notable simply because they exist (see WP:NTRAINSTATION)

2. This is, in fact, a different station from National University station in Ho Chi Minh City. Toadspike (talk) 10:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro), which should have a better table of stations. Reywas92^Talk 14:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little League World Series Championship Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also listcruft (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are YouTube links, some are not significant for a list and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Baseball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Ambari

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

There are references that verify its existence but nothing that shows notability under WP:GNG. Once of many forks from List of Apache Software Foundation projects. Can be redirected back to the list page as an WP:ATD but bringing to discussion in case someone is able to find better sourcing. CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found a couple of books that mention Ambari-Hadoop for Dummies and Hadoop in 24 Hours — Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's some decent coverage in books and in articles found in scholar. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which references? I do see mentions (which again, verify its existence) but which references would you say contribute to notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Apache Software Foundation projects as nom suggested. Pretty insignificant coverage. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo Soto Norambuena

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

Article is based entirely on work by the subject and has no evidence of third-party notability. Almost identical to article previously speedy deleted and salted as Leopoldo Soto * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 11 April 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 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am inclined to think they may be notable, but just across the line. --Bedivere (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improve (an unusual vote). Based upon just his publication record he does not qualify (he publishes as Leopoldo Soto), and I could not verify his appointments listed in http://pppp.cl/contenido/investigador.php?varbajada=1. However, with a bit more digging I found https://www.cchen.cl/?p=7217&highlight=Leopol which has more notable information, but I am using Google to translate from Spanish. I think some more digging (and possibly improvement) is needed first by a native Spanish speaker. (Android visual editor messing up?) Ldm1954 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree with the nom's arguments. There is a lack of independent sources that would meet WP:ANYBIO. If we're going with GNG, I'd vote delete. However, I'm a bit more hesistant in regards to this article on a WP:NPROF basis. The most recent deleted revision of the salted page mentions that they are a Fellow for the Institute of Physics. This is literally wikilinked as an example of meeting criteria #3. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, which is why I voted Improve which to me is a version of Keep. I find it very strange that the page was edited to remove key information that is an automatic #C3. While these were unsourced, removing them I consider to be very harsh. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N.B., I just reinstated with sources the key awards that were removed. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revised vote. After adding a few sources and restoring his FInstP he qualifies under #C3. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier Air Group SIX

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

No evidence that this formation meets the GNG. Of the currently-cited sources, 2, 3, and 5 are self-published, not independent, and not reliable (except for direct quotes from Navy documents in source 3). Source 1 [41] seems to list only establishment and disestablishment dates (not sigcov), which is more than I expected from a source supposedly covering "1910-1920" – it seems the citing editor made a typo, the citation should read "1910-2010". Source 4 [42] doesn't seem to mention this unit at all. In sum, there are 0 sources that count toward the GNG, and I couldn't find anything in a before search. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Toadspike (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be redirected to List of United States Navy aircraft wings. Toadspike (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable. WP:BEFORE seems to have overlooked Moroson, Lundstrom, Hammel, and books on the Battle of the Eastern Solomons or the Battle of Philippine Sea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to withdraw this nomination if you can properly cite those books in the article. With that information alone, it is very hard to know what books you are talking about. For example, I don't know how to find a book by "Moroson", and could not find one with such a name on either battle you mentioned. Toadspike (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)

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

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute in February was to merge it to Air source heat pump. They should be re-merged absent a changed consensus to split the content back out into its own article, such as via a WP:SPLIT discussion or WP:DRV. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Engineering, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We just did this one and it's back again. !Merge as suggested less than 6mths ago. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned my position/opinion is on Talk:EcoCute (Japan), please refer.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Note that previous AfD was closed as merge despite the fact that it appears one editors were advocating for keep, one (nominator) for merge, and one for delete: it seems more like no consensus to me. Appears to have some international coverage from fiz-karlsruhe.de that's already cited in the article. ja:エコキュート has lots of coverage including from Yomiuri, Mainichi, Kyodo, NHK, and more including an award from ja:発明協会. I also found this magazine featuring it. I would also rename to get rid of the parenthetical per WP:PARENDIS. DCsansei (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Re-creating a page that was closed as merge, now with a spurious disambiguation, is not constructive. Dmoore5556 (talk) 05:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: EcoCute is trademark with millions of units used in Japan, some number of units also used in oversea, hopefully more number in area other than Japan. Installations, Japan and oversea case study list Article context and external link shows reality. I had created article EcoCute in July 2008‎, in January 2024, nominated for delete, then merged to, but eliminated section EcoCute in Air source heat pump thereafter. EcoCute (Japan) is based on number of units used/working in Japan, so that this is eligible to be an article in fact with (Japan). As Generic trademark, no one nominate trademark Coca-Cola merger into Coke nor Jeep into automobile, neither Wikipedia® registered trademark neither. EcoCute is registered and generic trademark. I shall repeat once again:

Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. This comment is in My opinon on 12:46, 7 February 2024. If this nomination be resulted as merge back to Air source heat pump again, or other, merge or delete nomination will be happened again and again. Independent article EcoCute (Japan) is much safer from delete/merge, and contribute CO₂ reduction with implemented efficiency. --Namazu-tron (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medixsysteme

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

Spammy promotional page written by connected WP:SPA-contributors. Does not appear to even have a functional website let alone any rs's. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Medicine. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I'm a little surprised news actually returned zero results for once. Nothing useful in books, nothing at all in Qwant, nothing useful in ProQuest. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [43], [44] and [45]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minesh Mehta

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

Written as an advert for a radiation oncologist. Possible COI edits by User:Anniyam and User:Pikar 81. GobsPint (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Uganda, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but heavily trim. He has heavy citations for his work (WP:PROF#C1) and at some point at least appears to have held an endowed chair (#C5), the Eric Wolfe Professorship of Human Oncology at the University of Wisconsin, although the sources I can find for this are not great [46]. But the article is promotional and puffed up with non-accomplishments and non-reliable sources to the point where notability has become hard to discern. WP:DINC, but there is an argument to be made for WP:TNT here. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per NPROF#1 based on the GS profile, h-index of 130 is clearly somebody who should have an article in Wikipedia. --hroest 16:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but heavily trim. I'll see what I can do about trimming this down and making it readable, but I agree with David Epstein. Qflib (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiljson Mandela[edit]

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

The subject is not notable. The award "Cesarica" is not at all notable to value the importance of the subject. Upon WP:BEFORE, I could find 3 articles about him, which doesn't show notability. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Croatia. 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 08:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy enough to find widespread Croatian mainstream media coverage of this person - HRT had them on one of their music shows in 2021[47], RTL interviewed him in 2022[48] and later hired him for their 'Masked Singer' show in 2023[49], and Nova TV covered his interview in 2023[50]. There's a nationwide renown and it's a topic that might conceivably interest a few average English readers. Ultimately, if we kept Barbara Radulović back in the day, we might as well keep this. --Joy (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely strongly disagree. I second everything Joy mentioned! He is one of the most successful young Croatian musicians/rappers. With 2 Porin nominations[51][52], coverage by the 3 biggest Croatian TV channels (including interviews and participating as one of the celebrity contestants in Masked Singer) + millions of YouTube views and a lot more (I get that you couldn't find it tho, but there's def a lot of sources), I would say he is undoubtedly notable. I'm willing to expand the article soon. CroatiaElects (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes GNG in Croatian sources. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of La Liga broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a tv guide.. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added that give it notability.[53], [54], [55]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 3 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!} 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sourcing found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT also applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, that page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and comprehensive information with references and sources.Puente aereo (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and necessary article, its sources are the best PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sangmin

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

Prod challenged so bringing here. Totally unsourced, original research, before finds nothing. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable sources in the Korean language. [56] in Encyclopedia of Korean Culture, [57][58] (Parts of e-books on a history website maintained by the Academy of Korean Studies)

, academic paper [59].

I mentioned this in edit comment on the article, but we focus on notability first and foremost, and then look at article quality. And I agree, the article isn't great. This was an entire social class for centuries, and has been written about extensively in Korea. Lmk if you'd like me to dig up more sources. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dayari Balbuena

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Dominican women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Basin

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

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, 1 source providing a dictionary definition, plus an WP:UNSOURCED quasi-duplicate of Caribbean#Countries and territories list. Whatever else this article might have been intended for, is better served by List of Caribbean islands or Caribbean Sea. It has been a redirect in the past, that could work instead of deletion, but then we must agree on the best target. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The discussion has evolved a lot since I commenced it three days ago. Now 4 editors (including myself as nom) are in favour of Disambiguation, and 2 editors are in favour of Keep, while nobody is in favour of outright Deletion or a Redirect anymore. Just want to note that, because the latter two are the only options I suggested in my original rationale above. NLeeuw (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: I see you've just turned it into a redirect to Caribbean. I'm not opposed to that outcome, but isn't this a bit of a premature move after I have just initiated this AfD? NLeeuw (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I was using the easy-merge tool and had the page up since before your nomination so I didn't even see that when I saved it five minutes later! I undid that and will vote ~~redirect~~ to Caribbean. The one source is an analysis of the breadth of terms that can apply to this region, all of which can have different geographic and political definitions, so I see no basis for a separate article as if this were a distinct or well-defined concept. The see also links for the US program use the political definition that includes some non-bordering countries, so this is pointless. Reywas92^Talk 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha I already thought that might have been going on as we acted almost at the same time. No worries. :) NLeeuw (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the comment below I would also support disambiguation However, I am still strongly opposed to keeping the page. Even with the added information, I don't see the need for stand-alone article. The origin of the term for the Caribbean Basin Initiative belongs on that article, and the rest is just generically about the region. Yes, the term is used – inconsistently, including for this Initiative and as described by [60] – but even if Basin countries are related in various ways however defined, a separate page isn't warranted. Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR or SYNTH - in fact, a very easy WP:BEFORE search as the defined area is discussed by many books and scholarly articles dating back years including [61] [62] [63] [64]. These just scratch the surface - there was a history section at one point that was deleted for lack of sourcing, wondering if restoring and sourcing it would be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a disambiguation page to disambiguate w/ Caribbean, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983, Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act. It's clear from the vast array of reliable sources and uses that "Caribbean Basin" is a generic term for the Caribbean Sea and countries in the region. The article as it stands relies on one source to separate out Barbados and the Bahamas as not part of the Caribbean Basin, but most other uses include all regional countries in the term and treat it as an equivalent term to "Caribbean region." It would be original research for an article to rely on a single (and tendentious) definition to somehow conjure "Caribbean Basin" into existence as a separate term. My reason for turning this into a disambig page rather than a redirect is to cover the various U.S. government laws and initiatives employing the term (and that include the Bahamas and Barbados, natch). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Dclemens' sensible reasoning and a lot of the competing definitions which may lead to a WP:POVFORK with Caribbean if this is not done. I think that's the first time I've gotten to vote that in an AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A DP might be the best solution here. I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome either. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I've expanded the article with reliable sources. Based on the sources I've seen which I've added to the article (see article), this appears to be a specific geographical region, which in part, but not exclusively, is determined by political and economic considerations. In someway, similar to the Middle Belt, and other regional articles, etc. The subject is notable in its own right, with plenty of WP:RS discussing the topic in dephth, and maybe we should be mindful not to confuse the general reader between a geographic region/basin (which are notable), and an economic or trade program like Caribbean Basin Initiative, instituted by statute law like Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983. There is a huge difference between these and perhaps we should be mindful not to lump this article to other articles which would be wrong, and might also confuse the reader. In my view, to merge with another article would be like discussing two separate unrelated subjects in the same article. In the end, it may push the community to have to create the same article which was previously created and deleted, just to separate the two topics, and would send us back to square one. I haven't even scratched the surface, but from the sources I've seen so far, I believe this article can be expanded even further. On a side note, would the nom kindly transclude this AfD to to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa so that Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora are also automatically alerted? African Diaspora get their notifications from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa. Many thanks.Tamsier (talk)
These additions don't deal with the fact that there is no consensus among the sources on what defines the "Caribbean Basin" versus just the "Caribbean." As the current revision of the article notes, the US Caribbean Basin Initiative excluded Cuba and Nicaragua. One sentence says "This means countries like Barbados and The Bahamas, which are culturally and politically Caribbean, are not included.[2]" (And the list in the article does indeed exclude them.) Later on, a statement in the article says "It is customary to include Bermuda and the Bahamian Archipelago within this region, although they are located in the Atlantic Ocean outside the arc, since they share the cultural and historical legacy of the countries of the Lesser Antilles." So what is it? The more the article gets developed, the more it will just turn into a content fork of Caribbean. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent observation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971, I think that is a matter for the reliable secondary sources to decide, not for us to define it, as to try and do so here would constitute WP:OR. We report on what the reliable secondary sources say with respect to weight, and leave it to the general reader to make up their mind. If we go down the route of trying to define it here, that would constitute WP:OR. The differences in definition as per sources, however, should not be grounds for deletion. In situations like that, we simply report per weight as per Wiki guidelines.Tamsier (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But if the reliable sources don't even have a common agreement on what "Caribbean Basin" means or if it's different from "Caribbean," why bother having an article about it? Do we need an article to debate the semantics of the term "Caribbean Basin," because that's what we have now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is general agreement. Part of the problem is that the agreement doesn't match what's currently in the actual article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But this still isn't really a "specific geographical region" in that the geographical area/first sentence isn't even accurate in most cases. The book you added "The Caribbean Basin: An International History" does include Barbados and the Bahamas, as well as El Salvador. Certainly we can acknowledge that Caribbean island nations are historically and politically related to the Central American and northern South American countries, but I don't feel like we need a stand-alone article to say that. We could draftify the page, but I'm not sure what sort of expansion you say can be done actually has to be done here – and not somewhere like History of Central America or History of the Caribbean – that wouldn't just be duplicative or an unnecessary content fork. Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But why does there need to be a specific definition in order to show notability? Why can't we say some sources say X and some say Y and have it be notable? Why is an editing decision coming in the way of notability? SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's less about notability and more about the WP:CONTENTFORK issue. If the article really encompasses any number of countries associated with the Caribbean region and/or the Caribbean sea, then the term should disambiguate/redirect to "Caribbean." That covers the territory. We only need a freestanding article if there is evidence that the term "Caribbean Basin" means something specific and different from "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I liked reading this link from the article. It comes from an ecological perspective but the point is that many different organizations, discliplines, or analysts may use several names with different and inconsistent definitions for the region and subregions. You could make a big complex Euler diagram out of them. But just because each of these names is used in depth does not mean there's something more to say that justifies the need for a separate article. So sure, maybe Caribbean Basin is notable and I am making an editing decision – there's just not enough to say that this is needed as another article (WP:NOPAGE). Perhaps a page similar to Terminology of the British Isles could break out the differences when sources say X or Y. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Such a terminology article only seems warranted when a simple disambiguation page is not enough to point readers to what they are looking for. I think a DP is the proper place to start. NLeeuw (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I still don't really agree - there's lots of scholarly and international sources which use the term "Caribbean Basin" and the book Politics and Development in the Caribbean Basin: Central America and the Caribbean in the New World Order (Grugel, 2015) discusses how the term was used by the United States government in the 1980s to give a specific geographic definition to an area where "Caribbean" is not necessarily a specific geographic identifier. That book also notes El Salvador is included in spite not touching the Caribbean, as confirmed by this paper. There's something geographically notable here - it's not just a superfluous term. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As noted above in my earlier comment, it is outside the remit of Wikipedia editors to try to define terms which are not already defined or covered by reliable secondary sources. Our notability guideline is very clear as to what deserves a stand-alone article and what doesn't. In my view, as the one who expanded the article and added other reliable sources, I believe this article meets WP:GNG. Our policy on WP:WEIGHT makes it absolutely clear as to how to give weight to sources with differing views. The issue of weight is not a ground for deletion as noted above. The content fork argument does not apply here, because the scope is different from the other articles mentioned by other editors. This article focuses more on a particular geographical region/basin which in part, but not exclusively is motivated by economic/trade, instituted by US law. I contend that, moving this article to another would end up causing more harm to that article and confuses the reader. Sending a fully sourced notable article to a disambiguation page not only defeats the purpose of our disambiguation process, but also cheats the general reader looking for this article. Of course the article can be expanded even further and much better, but that is not a ground for deletion, neither is variation in definition which can be resolved by adopting out weight policy.Tamsier (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think your additions have made the term "Caribbean Basin" as such any more worthy of a stand-alone article separate from Caribbean and Caribbean Sea.
- You've not changed the definition in the opening line either, so let's do a close-reading comparison:
"Caribbean Basin" according to Caribbean Basin: the Caribbean Sea and any territories in or touching the Caribbean Sea.

"Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean: a subregion of the Americas that includes the Caribbean Sea and its islands, some of which are surrounded by the Caribbean Sea and some of which border both the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean; the nearby coastal areas on the mainland are sometimes also included in the region.

"Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean Sea: The entire Caribbean Sea area, the West Indies' numerous islands, and adjacent coasts are collectively known as the Caribbean.

I still don't see a difference.
- The "Geographic area" section you added is wholly WP:UNSOURCED.
- The sentence about the Caribbean Basin Initiative indicates that the 1983 U.S. govt law excluded Cuba and Nicaragua from the definition, so the 1983 U.S. govt law cannot be used to support the definition or the "Caribbean Basin region" altname. It is also at odds with your WP:UNSOURCED "Geographical area" section, which explicitly includes Cuba.
- The Mount/Randall source is invoked to say the Caribbean became "an American lake". But if "the Caribbean" is something else than "the Caribbean Basin", this whole sentence is irrelevant and out of place in this article, or very sloppily added.
- The Pastor source is similarly invoked to say the USA never saw itself as a Caribbean nation, and ...all the nations in and around the Caribbean Sea seemed to have..., which is irrelevant as well if those words mean something else than "Caribbean Basin". If they do mean the same, then you have just proven our case that "Caribbean Basin" does not merit a stand-alone article, but is just a synonym of "Caribbean", namely: the Caribbean Sea, its islands and the continental coasts of the Caribbean Sea.
I rest my case. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly not a synonym - it's a specific geostrategic definition. I've added additional sources to the article and cleaned up the lede to note that El Salvador is generally included, which completely negates your argument, and I have not yet included the footnote from this article which clearly defines why this term is of practical importance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a specific geostrategic definition for a particular source. Quote from page v, note 1 of the Rand paper you linked: "Throughout this study the term 'Caribbean Basin' will be defined as the geographic area of the Caribbean Sea, including all the rim islands, all littoral states (from Mexico to Venezuela), and three countries not geographically contiguous to the Caribbean: El Salvador in Central America, and Guyana and Suriname on the Atlantic (see map facing p.1). Thus used, 'Caribbean Basin' denotes a specific geostrategic region that has special importance for the United States. This differs from the reference used in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which has an economic focus on the smaller, less-developed countries of the region, thereby excluding Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela." That source is highlighting the fact that there is no single definition of "Caribbean Basin" and choosing one for its own research purposes. This gets to the point that @Nederlandse Leeuw and @Reywas92 and I have been making: this is a widely used term that means different things in different contexts but that generally aligns with the regional definition of "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Dclemens1971. I think that attempts to find more sources on "Caribbean Basin", although certainly done in good faith, have so far amounted to little more than WP:REFBOMB of the "lacking significant coverage" i.e. brief namechecking type (no. #1), "verify random facts" type (no. #2), and "name-drop" type (no. #4). There is no good case for a stand-alone article (nor for outright deletion, but I have given up that proposal already), but there is a good case for a disambiguation page now. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, these arguments are completely ridiculous - something is notable if it's been covered significantly by multiple sources, and many, many different sources use the definition to discuss an otherwise arbitrary geography. There's absolutely a good case for a stand-alone article - the article covers a term used to define a specific region, used in scholarly articles, that does not overlap any other term, and the books and articles that have been written on this area absolutely demonstrate that. That is what notability is - there's no WP:NOT. You just don't like it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I always love a good article on a term or concept that hasn't been properly covered elsewhere. I write such articles all the time (or at least, I try to). I'm open to "Caribbean Basin" meriting a stand-alone article, but I'm afraid I do not see it happening based on the arguments and sources provided on the one hand, and our policies and guidelines on the other. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy and guideline which excludes this, and it passes GNG as a regional geographic definition, including in sources not yet cited such as the New Third World, which contains a chapter on Caribbean Basin countries, again noting the inclusion of countries such as El Salvador. The arguments for deletion so far assume it's a generic term, which it is clearly not, and dismiss the sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no policy and guideline which excludes this Well, I started this AfD by invoking WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNSOURCED, and later WP:REFBOMB. Subsequently, others have invoked WP:POVFORK, WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Our arguments are based on solid policies and guidelines.

(For the sake of completeness, you and Tamsier are the only ones arguing for a keep, invoking WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. Of course, the quantity of policies and guidelines invoked does not necessarily say anything about their quality and relevance for this AfD.) NLeeuw (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR doesn't apply since this isn't original research, and WP:SYNTH doesn't apply since we are stating what the sources say after a bit of cleanup. There are only 11 sources in the article at the moment. WP:POVFORK doesn't apply because Caribbean Basin and the Caribbean are two separate concepts. There's no good reason to delete this - it's a now decently sourced specific geographic concept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Investment Advisors

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. All sources provided in article are either linked to the subject (1, 5-9) or passing mentions (2-4).

User is likely COI, created a similar article in draftspace at Draft:Independent Investment Advisors which was rejected three times before they ultimately created a mainspace article directly by moving from userspace. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, and Oregon. Triptothecottage (talk) 06:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credibly (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

I guess this has been recreated—wasn't quite sure what had happened here initially, but as I was planning on commenting on the previous AFD I guess I may as well nom it. I couldn't find anything useful in my own search. Editing history of the creator also seems a bit odd but I'm not too familiar with that kind of thing. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Michigan. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD. The only indepth sourcing is not from reliable sources. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created the article as good faith. I believe the subject passes GNG on the basis of independent references. JSS24 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith is irrelevant. To a first approximation all articles, no matter how lacking in notability they may be, are created in good faith. Athel cb (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not all articles, heh. It's possible the range p-block on the IP is just collateral though. I mean, I wouldn't bet money on it but it's possible. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:16, 3 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!} 05:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Evidences are available to prove subject's Notability Guidelines. And passes GNG. 2409:40D0:10CE:A5F:1C4F:A30E:B72D:E5DA (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This user is currently blocked." What more is there to say? Delete. Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore references need to meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Nothing I can find meets the criteria, mostly just PR and company announcements and profiles, all generated either by the company or regurgitating company provided/generated information, nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of significant coverage from reliable sources other than routine coverage. Air on White (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 520[edit]

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

The definition of WP:NOTNEWS. Losing an inflatable slide mid-flight isn't something that's gonna get sustained coverage, and I know (not "I don't think", I know) it's gonna fail the ten-year test. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why not request speed delete if you mr. einstein think you know (not "i don't think", i know) that this will 100% fail that nonsense test? like those random plane crash articles from the 90's that would definitely fail that 10 year test?? GeekyAviation (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. The aircraft involved is 33 years old, this isn’t a brand new aircraft that was recently delivered. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No fatalities or serious injuries, only minor damage to the airframe, and unlikely to result in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry. I agree that this is unlikely to pass WP:10YT. Maybe this incident will maintain some traction with sensationalist sources due to a Boeing aircraft being involved, but I fully expect all reliable sources to stop covering this story long before it would be considered lasting coverage. - ZLEA _T\^C 05:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with everything above. If this does attract continued coverage (as unlikely as that seems) then it can be resurrected.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Incident seems unnotable. No fatalities, no injuries, just like any other minor incident. Also WP:NOTNEWS CreatorOfMinecraftHerobrine (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and New York.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run-of-the-mill incident, per WP:NOTNEWS. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i remember when you called LATAM Airlines Flight 800 a non notable incident aswell, of course you call this a run-of-the-mill incident GeekyAviation (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

seems like you are going along with everyone else and seem to not know anything about aviation, funny GeekyAviation (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are becoming disruptive. If you have legitimate rebuttals to specific arguments, then you can voice them here. Otherwise, please let this discussion run its course. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"then you can voice them here." thats literally what im doing GeekyAviation (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should actually state what’s wrong with their statements while providing clear reasons why you don’t agree whilst being respectful instead of criticizing them just because you have a different opinion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do i look like im deleting peoples votes and not letting the discussion run? nope GeekyAviation (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have opened an SPI case into GeekyAviation. Liliana has also opened an ANI discussion regarding Geeky's rude comments. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it seems they were blocked just as I was typing this. - ZLEA _T\^C 03:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable minor aircraft incident, WP:NOTNEWS. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 05:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Metzger

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

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following more topics: Anime and manga, and Video games. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails per WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:THREE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over. Dream Focus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore.
The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasis WP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:

3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aquarius Musikindo

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

Nothing notable, nor relevant per GNG. No SIGCOV. The author is blocked for evading the block Gavrover (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if we can verify the article's claim that it is the second largest record label in Indonesia, it's definitely worthy of inclusion. Chubbles (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's definitely the second-biggest.[65][66][67][68] WC gudang inspirasi (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source on one page of a book is the definition of failing WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 3 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!} 04:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle Owl[edit]

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

No indication of notability outside of the college. I am unable to find significant discussion of this mascot in independent sources. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Education, and Oregon. ... discospinster _talk 03:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Reed College. Sources are not independent. Neocorelight (Talk) 06:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, good sources improvements have been added and made since the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 3 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!} 04:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sources added last week, I've listed more potential sources to the article's Talk page (in decreasing order of value for notability), in the event others might want to add more text. Article clears the bar for WP:GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Albert

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

Lacks significant coverage, though his company Design Projects is an extremely generic name. No possible redirect as his company does not have an article. He seems to have worked mostly on B movies. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 01:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Design Projects Incorporated was formed on February 10, 1978 in California, (see https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/search/business) and was closed on June 1, 1994.

Design Projects first client was Universal Pictures, and also did advertising, design and packaging for 20th Century Fox, Warner Home Video, Columbia Pictures, as well as international distributors, starting with Best International Films and Producers Sales Organizations, and including Goldcrest and ad campaigns for Sanrio Films while they had a Los Angeles branch office.

It also created ad campaigns for many independent film distributors, such as Group One, New World, Film Ventures International. We also

Prior to 1978, I worked as a freelance designer for Universal Pictures, Filmways, as well as Universal Music.

Richard Albert RLA2024 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mun Kyong-nam

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. I believe this is the first article on a North Korean football player that has come to AFD that the consensus decided to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Chan-myung[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect 1966 North Korean World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The starting goalkeeper of the historic 1966 North Korean World Cup team. Source three states that his life story is chronicled in-depth in the book 동방의　첫　축구강국; he is also known to have been featured in the documentary The Game of Their Lives ([69]), which is also highly likely significant coverage. There's also a significant source I located here from NK Chosun, which notes among other things that he later was the head coach of the national team that competed at the 1976 Summer Olympics. He also frequently seems to be mentioned in articles regarding the team and NK football, e.g. [70] and [71]. We also need to take into consideration how outrageously difficult it is to find coverage on historic North Koreans. We have a decent bit of coverage, know more exists, and know that through his "spectacular saves" (per mentioned Telegraph source) the North Korea team was able to produce one of the greatest upsets in World Cup history. This should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources presented by @BeanieFan11. Svartner (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Thanks to User:BeanieFan11 for actually conducting a WP:BEFORE search. Subject clearly meets GNG and SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources from BeanieFan11 above Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per BeanieFan11's valuable sources Waqar💬 18:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 03:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Jin-hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jang Ok-chol[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I found were trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect‎ to Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics. I question the value of this redirect given that we don't have the subject's name but I'm inclined to close discussions with ATD. Editors can always bring this to WP:RFD if you strongly object. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etchegaray (pelotari)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. It is unlikely sources can be found, as we know virtually nothing about him; not his first name, not his date and place of birth, not his date and place of death. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought that there might be more on the French page, but there isn't. There is no Basque page (not that I can read Basque, but Google Translate can). Athel cb (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is there a reliable prose source asserting that Etchegaray and Maurice Durquetty did not win medals? I noticed that Wikipedia used to denote these two as silver medalists on their articles, but in 2022 the nominator removed their medals. Typically, if a team forfeits a match, they would be considered 2nd place, not absent entirely from the results. I see that the Olympics.com database only mentions the first place team, but their results (and the affiliated Olympedia) have been wrong before, i.e. see the men's marathon results discrepancy from the very same Olympics. --Habst (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if there were no third and fourth team, there were no initial rounds and the competition went straight to final, and if a team did not enter that match, how would they be considered participants? Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Bill Mallon did list 2 participating teams, but his description of the event is fairly flimsy. There is no basis whatsoever for a biography. A mention in the event page is ample. The Olympic Games did not have the status it attained later. The pool of competitors was often completely random. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lecomte (archer). Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Barring a discovery, there's not going to be sigcov if we don't know his name. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nano Nuclear Energy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost all sources are routine coverage and/or "contributor" or non-independent. Some articles about the broader technology mention the company in passing, but no real coverage of the company itself. Bestagon ⬡ 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Science. Bestagon ⬡ 02:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as TOOSOON to tell if this company will someday become notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on my end either. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nodar Kancheli[edit]

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

No independent notability apart from two collapsed buildings. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE #3. In addition to the two buildings mentioned in the article, he contributed to the Kolomna Speed Skating Center, per this source: [72], as well as other significant projects. E.g. he designed the dome of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour: [73]. Sufficient for a referenced stub. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several sources discuss his work as can be found here. These are all in English. I'm sure someone who knows Russian can find a lot more than this. Considering this with the above points, I believe the subject is notable, and there is significant coverage. Aintabli (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some English references. I don't read Russian, but it sure looks like he is a Russian Brutalist architect. Check out the Druzhba Sanatorium - evidently still standing. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanatorium "Kurpaty"

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Khachatryan[edit]

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

Boxer whose only reference is a database entry. There is a draft for a diplomat, Draft: Artur Khachatryan, which will otherwise require disambiguation. The need for disambiguation is not a reason to delete, but the lack of sports notability is Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Armenia. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more content at the Russian and Polish wikis that should be checked. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with above comment. I'd lean to a procedural keep if those sources help demonstrate WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. The AIBA database entry shows he had 4 wins and 5 losses in his short career. His bronze medal at the European championships qualified him for the 2011 world championships where he lost his first fight (in the round of 64). I saw no significant independent coverage of him and no indication of meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to have an editor review those sources at other Wikipedias and provide some concrete information or this discussion will likely close as Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources offered by the Russian and Polish articles are just database win/loss listings. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the other languages are trivial so far as I can tell and I can't find anything better. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ganbare Goemon Kirakira Dōchū: Boku ga Dancer ni Natta Wake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NGAME. Not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources. Does not need its own article. Clear friend a ^💬 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG, articles by reliable sources Destructoid (by staff editor see: [74]), Hardcore Gaming 101, plus Japanese language version of the article lists 2 print reviews: [75] - Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also this Italian magazine that seems to have reviewed the game: [76] - Mika1h (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a short review in a Spanish magazine: [77] - Mika1h (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above, there are several secondary sources that refer to the game. Oz346 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very clear evidence that the article passes WP:GNG. I would suggest the nominator withdraw. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, meets GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sources talking about the game out there, which pretty much establish that it's a notable game. It's just that the article is poorly structured but can be improved. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Awards pre-show[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. One of many pages related to Hum Awards likely created to promote Hum TV. This one can easily be included on the main Hum Awards page assuming there are references that can be found to support it. CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree- fails WP:GNG. The pre-show details of the Hum Awards can be covered into the relevant pages. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]