WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday March 30 (Sat) March 29 (Fri) March 28 (Thu) More...

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

< March 30	April 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Penton Keah

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

not notable by any measure. There is only one source from Sudans Post that mentions his name, which is a news outlet that belongs to his brother! Other than that, not even in-passing mentions. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, Internet, Egypt, and Sudan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a basic internet search shows he is clearly notable in South Sudan. Probably not notable outside of South Sudan, but global notability is not a requirement of WP:SIGCOV and national coverage is enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor892z (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share that simple search?

i above included a search with zero results FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sargam Koushal

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

Not notable due to WP:BLP1E and note that the other winners of Mrs. World do not have their own page, so precedent shows that there is no basis for creating a Wikipedia page just for women winning one low-profile marital pageant and doing nothing else with their reign. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also wish to nominate the photo on Wikimedia Commons for deletion because I doubt this person who created a new account just to post this photo was truly submitting his "own work" (I suppose admin will have to look behind the scenes to see if this claim was convincing) but I do not know how to nominate photos for deletion. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Jammu and Kashmir. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article receives significant coverage according to the Wikipedia guideline on significant coverage per WP:SIGCOV. It also includes citations for different events like she was judge in Mrs South Africa 2023 (a national event), so it doesn't fall under the guideline for bio notable for single event per WP:BLP1E. However, the nominator claims that past winners lack Wikipedia articles. While some winners might not have articles, the presence or absence of articles for past winners is not a validity criterion for this specific article. Every article is evaluated on its own merits based on whether it meets the notability guidelines per WP:GNG and having WP: SIGCOV. Regards GAGIWOR (talk) 07:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nylon Pink

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

Sources on page do not appear to be reliable (except maybe LA Weekly, though it is a blog), and I couldn't find any other coverage aside from this very brief AllMusic bio. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mohammed Helal Uddin

AfDs for this article:

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

Son of a notable politician. He has never been elected to public office, but is active within the party. The cited sources are passing mentions, not significant coverage. Searches found slightly deeper news coverage of his conviction for helping his dad conceal illegally acquired assets (he got 3 years, daddy got 13).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

He has only been written about in the context of his father, so my sense is that he is not notable. He is not a suitable subject for a stand alone article; he is a footnote to his father's biography. There is no content worth merging, but I could agree to a redirect to Mir Mohammad Nasiruddin, where his conviction is already mentioned. Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's solid research. ——Serial Number 54129 18:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. This is authentic bio — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nationalist 80 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — The Nationalist 80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@The Nationalist 80 Nothing in the nomination suggested that it was a hoax. Instead, the concern is that the subject is not notable. —C.Fred (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen (Transformers)

AfDs for this article:

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

This character does not have enough WP:SIGCOV or WP:RS. Most articles that mention him are just about the film and don't go in depth on this character. Searching for the alt name Megatronus gives no better results, just TFwiki and sporadic toy announcements from Transformers fan sites. The previous AfD had one keep vote without policy rationale and closed due to the nominator being blocked, the article has not improved since then. Impressive piece of WP:FANCRUFT though, but we're WP:NOTFANDOM. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources seem to be either announcements or the script of the Revenge of the Fallen movie, which cannot be used as it is a primary source.

Industrial Insect (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grid-connected photovoltaic power system

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

Info already covered in articles such as Photovoltaic system, rooftop solar power etc Chidgk1 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty substantial article, but I agree with the nominator that it seems redundant. Merge what is useful into the other referenced articles. ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Adegbile

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

Article about a non-notable businessperson. Sources are regular Run-of-the-mill and paid paid sources. This clearly states its sponsored. The rest of the sources are written by contributors and are WP:PROMO who in itself are not independent of the subject. Subjects fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources explicitly state his name, and sources provided are promotional in nature. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 12:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: several articles have detailed info and are from reliable Nigerian publications listed at WP:NGRS, including The Sun, Daily Trust and Nigerian Tribune.Royal88888 (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Ali

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated it for deletion back in 2023 i guess but it was kept, but i feel like it still doesn't meet GNG so nominating it again. Most of the cited sources either do not meet WP:RS or are trivial mentions. Saqib (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, Internet, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still nothing found for this person. Nothing in Canadian sources; most if not all sites are where to see him perform or social media sites. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebFetch

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

Fails WP:N. None of the sources in the article establish notability, and I couldn’t find any sources that would establish notability. This had a failed PROD in 2009 because two sources were added at that time. However, those sources are either primary or don’t cover the subject in depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Primary sources now in the article, all I can find are download repositories. Not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed coat of arms of North Macedonia

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

Originally researched article (for the most part) and completely redundant since the same information is already covered in National emblem of North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an unnecessary article. Jingiby (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that most of the titles of this article in the other wikis translate to "Macedonian lion". If the Macedonian lion is notable enough, it can have its own standalone article with that title. It is a rather prominent symbol for some ethnic Macedonian orgs (such as VMRO-DPMNE). I otherwise agree that the potential for the lion to become the national emblem can just be covered in the National Emblem article. --Local hero ^talk 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear to be notable for its own standalone article. Otherwise there's already content about it on National symbols of North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lion used by DPMNE is solely an imitation of the symbols of the original organization from the end of the 19th century - BMARC, which borrowed the Bulgarian lion from the Bulgarian revolutionary traditions, that have nothing to do with any Macedonian lion. Jingiby (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Liem

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

There is no notability claim in the article other than a those related to postdoctoral work on hepatology and that the a frog (Taudactylus liemi)) was named after him. WP:NACADEMIC isn't met (unsurprising given that most of his career is outside of academia), and there are no other claims. I haven't been able to find other material supporting notability for this David Liem. Klbrain (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while I acknowledge the current scarcity of sources provided for David Liem's Wikipedia article, it's important to consider the context in which the article was created. At the time of its creation, my primary focus was on promptly documenting Liem's contributions, particularly his discovery of the Rheobatrachus silus species. This urgency made me reach the realization that including Liem's page would complete and improve the species' article. Sources probably exist out there and we shouldn’t just delete it per WP:NPOSSIBLE. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I must address the procedural concerns surrounding the deletion request. The unilateral decision to move the article to a different page (Eungella tinker frog) without prior consultation or discussion is concerning and goes against the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Subsequently proposing the deletion of the article without engaging in constructive dialogue further exacerbates this issue as the person that nominated the article for deletion seems to have done it spontaneously. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that this is all a bit blunt V.B.Sepanza, and thanks for your contributions to the project. The move was part of the new page patrol protocol which doesn't include or expect consultation prior to moves; I marked the move as bold, and don't mind being reversed. The next step, having been reversed, is to seek wider views here given that if the merge isn't a suitable alternative to deletion, then deletion seems the way forward. Thanks for adding your views as the page creator. Klbrain (talk) 07:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Your deletion nomination brings 0 benefits to the community, Wikipedians seem to only care about known stuff while advocating for the contrary. The page is a direct translation of the German page that originates from the French page (created in 2009). V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, Indonesia, Australia, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GS cites inadequate in a high-cited field and the frog is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't think taxonomy is a high-citation field; the nomination seems to confuse hepatology (a high-citation medical specialty) with herpetology (the study of reptiles and amphibians, his actual work area). Regardless, he doesn't have enough citations even in a low-citation field to make a convincing case for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the typo! Klbrain (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadama (App)

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

Subject fails GNG. None of these sources are independent of the subject as they all interview the subject's founders and many of these read like whitewashed PR. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Washington. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious spammy garbage with no meaningful RS and an obvious SPA who is trying to circumvent policy by moving this around. See also previous attempts. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 02:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this article. I do not have any conflict of interest and was not aware that the page was deleted in 2018. Even if that was the case, I am sure back then they did not have as many news coverage as they have today, because you will notice from most their article dates, they are all after 2019. This is not a reason to delete the page. The only valid reason to delete a page is if they do not have enough new coverage, which they do.

I'm familiar with the company through personal use of their application, and upon noticing the absence of a Wikipedia page about them, I took the initiative to create one. I am a new editor and had to look up what an "SPA" is and as you can see from my history I have done lot's of other edits and will be doing more in the future, so I am not an SPA. I wish Wikipedia would treat their new editors better than this, rather than accusing them of spam. Bradelykooper (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They have plenty of coverage to qualify. If you don't think its enough, do a Google search and you will find more. Coverage is present from credible publications such as Biz Journals, Bellevue College, GeekWire, Spoken Journal and more.Bradelykooper (talk) 05:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article reads like advertisement, definitely spammy, fails GNG and NCORP, sources are not good, so I fully agree with nom and Praxidicae. Tehonk (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the page, I've consciously avoided any language that might come across as promotional. If this remains a concern, I'm open to revising the content accordingly. Could you specify which parts you believe sound too much like an advertisement, so I can either adjust or eliminate them? Additionally, I've incorporated new sources discovered by the editor Royal88888 (below). Dismissing all sources as inadequate without explanation seems unfounded, particularly since many are from reputable outlets and some from university publications. Bradelykooper (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has more than enough news coverage to meet notability. I also found a few new ones. See GeekWire, King5, Washington.edu, bizjournals.com, and a few others.Royal88888 (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several of the sources look strong such as GeekWire, Washington University, and Bellevue College Articles. They have details of the company and its founders. I am not seeing anything that looks like PR and publications are reliable. COI issues should be addressed outside of AFD.Bikerose (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evie Dolan

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG based on sources in article and search of Newspapers.com. Most of the sources in the article are passing mentions and the only significant coverage is from questionable sources. Additionally, the only significant contributors to the page ([10]) appear to be users with conflicts of interest. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I agree that the article is poorly written, a Google search quickly reviews enough evidence to pass WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor892z (talk • contribs) 13:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aloysius Ogbonna

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

Non-notable traditional ruler. FailsWP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO, probably WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Just TOOSOON. Optional dratification. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 08:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: Maybe WP:TOOSOON but that will also not bring notability later. Subject has appeared in multiple WP:RS like this, this and this talking about their emergence after 24years vacancy on the throne which is significant, this could make them pass WP:Basic. Also, the article is not harmful, hence my lean support. Kaizenify (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, it is not harmful but again Too soon. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is trying to build a tree from a leaf - first, Ogugu-Ntegbenese kingdom should be established with reliable sources (Ogugu looks to be a different location), and properly de-orphaned. Then once that's done, the "kings", including a redirected Aloysius Ogbonna and the 24 year vacancy, might be covered there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024 Polish airspace violation

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

Not notable. There is not much to say about this event that isn't in the article already. Furthermore, other than the deadly missile explosion in Przewodów in 2022, there have been several other events like these in Poland that we haven't given an article [11] [12]. Airspace violations in Moldova and Romania haven't got their own articles either, and they've been often, specially in Moldova. Simply I don't find this event notable. Super Ψ Dro 23:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 23:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This seems to fail WP:TENYEARS. Jebiguess (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no follow-up report, this article should be merged. In fact, the description in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#24 March is sufficient. 日期20220626 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is sourced by RS, is very easily searchable on Google for dozens of other RS, and is about an event occurring on the same day as article creation and deletion. Nomination again is on the same day (i.e. less than 24 hours after the event occurred) so WP:RAPID is at play here (AfD less than 5 hours after creation of article). WP:DELAY was waiting for by over 12 hours after the event to help see notability, so the article was not rush created. The other events brought up amid the nomination also may be routine coverage events OR notable events to yet be created. Further research would have to be conducted to see which is the case, anyway that is a clear case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which is not valid for deletion. In short, the entire deletion nomination rests on WP:NEVENT, which it passess all criteria except for LASTING due to the very obvious RAPID deletion attempt. AfD should be closed as a Keep with the posibility of a future AfD OR merge discussion after it becomes clear (at least a week from now) if the event is routine or has lasting coverage. But yeah, keep due to a very poor RAPID deletion attempt. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there were no further developments following Poland's protest to Russia, this article should obviously be merged. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy close. I urge the nominator to take this to a merge or redirect discussion. There is no way this will be deleted as it's notable within a larger event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFD's can be closed as a merge or a redirect. There is no need for a speedy close. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the Weather Event Writer that WP:RAPID applies here. I doubt this will be notable enough for its own article but WP:Lasting coverage over the next few days and weeks are important in deciding notability. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Event not worthy of an article. Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Ecrusized (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TENYEARS. An event where a cruise missile strayed into a neighboring airspace for 39 seconds in the course of a major war, without any effect or apparent intention, is simply irrelevant to the extreme. MaeseLeon (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into a more generic article like Airspace violations during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as there are more similar events that could be covered in 1 article. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine already exists. Super Ψ Dro 09:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as indeed "there have been several other events like these in Poland that we haven't given an article [1] [2]. Airspace violations in Moldova and Romania haven't got their own articles either, and they've been often, specially in Moldova." so this is a significant topic! Xobbitua (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable as a indvidual event, one of the many such violations Marcelus (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As like some of the other similar violations covered in the Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, this is not notable enough for its own article per WP:NOTNEWS. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event had little-to-no effect on the wider conflict, and does not have the notability deserving of a separate article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Possibly worthy of a mention in other articles/lists, but definitely not notable enough for its own article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only ones with an article in Violations of non-combatant airspaces during the Russian invasion of Ukraine have been crashes or have caused deaths. Simply not notable enough for its own article, especially considering similar such events have not had articles made. Sadustu Tau (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and lack of sustained coverage. Stop creating articles for events just because they appeared in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important military and political event, which almost led to a serious diplomatic crisis with the potential expulsion of the Russian ambassador [13] [14]. The details for an international event of this scale would be better in a separate article so as not to overload the more general articles, per Wikipedia:Content forks. — Baidax ^💬 22:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Poland did not expel the Russian ambassador, so the missile intrusion into Polish airspace really has no big impact.--日期20220626 (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Poland–Russia relations#Russian invasion of Ukraine — I kind of agree with the notion that the content in Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 December 2023 – present)#24 March might be sufficient, but I think the main impact is on Poland-Russia relations and not as part of the war in Ukraine (just another salvo). It's been pointed out that Poland didn't take any real action ... but it is part of a set of events that might lead to a response, which is where my recommend for Poland-Russia relations comes from. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Poland–Russia relations#Russian invasion of Ukraine as there have been many airspace violations by Russia and this is not notable by itself. (unfortunately.. because there have been many such) ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Palace

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

Subject fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Of the five citations listed, the two PRP cites and both the substream and mosh cites uncritically republish the band's PR, with long quotation from one of the band members. Wikipedia could wait until the album actually comes out. Efforts to redirect this have failed. For me, I'd need to see cites from Blabbermouth and NME to think there's any general notability here. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I created the page as a redirect to method of loci; if its decided the article should be removed, it should be restored to the original edit rather than deleted. ··gracefool 💬 00:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band has history of lots of coverage, and there is already some for this album, which will certainly only gain more coverage once it is released. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Chris Troutman on this. Think this is a bit preliminary for an album that both hasn't released and hasn't garnered significant coverage. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to Redirect as primary meaning per Gracefool. Any album article should probably be named Memory Palace (2024 album) to distinguish it from the (also redlinked) 2008 album of the same name from Paul Haig and Billy Mackenzie, but it's clearly WP:TOOSOON currently for it to meet NALBUM until there's sufficient RS reviews. Articles covering band announcements are both run-of-the-mill and generally not independent, and sufficiently significant coverage of a creator and/or some of their works is WP:NOTINHERITED by other works. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBBV-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in California#LPTV stations: with a history of only carrying other stations or full-time national services (despite the Class A television service designation that requires some local programming), I doubt much significant coverage exists for this station. A PROD was contested with more-or-less this alternative to deletion being suggested; it does seem that an ((R to list entry)) is the best that can be done here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilisa Kaganovskaia

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; any medal placements are at the junior level. PROD was removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Janeke

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statuska

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

Small company that does not yet meet WP:GNG. Current sourcing is churnalism and the section on the wearable device reads like an advert. (well actually the rest of the article also reads like an advert though perhaps not as strikingly) Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing but press releases to be found. Amusingly, the article itself explains why: it's tiny for a social media platform, having only thousands of users. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giovan Snyman

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is Kate?

AfDs for this article:

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

Article history: For editors unfamiliar with this article and its torturous journey, welcome:

On 11 March, I created Where is Kate?, an article on the speculation surrounding the health and public absence of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and the Mother's Day photograph that followed.
I immediately started the first AfD discussion, motivated by editors at Talk:Catherine, Princess of Wales who had resisted calls for including the topic on that article. The first AfD discussion closed on 19 March as keep.
From 20 March, editors at the BLP noticeboard raised concerns that the article violated WP:BLP, which was hardly cited in the first AfD.
On 21 March, Simonm223 initiated a deletion review, believing that the closing statement of the first AfD did not sufficiently weigh the BLP concerns. This deletion review closed on 31 March as no consensus.
With the announcement of the princess' cancer diagnosis on 22 March, TheSpacebook and I initiated a second AfD, which Liz procedurally closed in deference to the ongoing deletion review.

In their closing statement of the deletion review, Sandstein recommended discussion on the article talk page before bringing the article back to AfD. Respectfully, I think the BLP concerns presented by a broad range of editors suggest a strong case for deletion that, ultimately, can only be decided at AfD.

Deletion rationale: I agree with the first AfD's closing statement that this isn't a notability dispute, but rather a question of Wikipedia's scope. As the first AfD discussion suggested, neither WP:NOTNEWS nor WP:NOTGOSSIP necessarily preclude this article's existence, given that the topic, even the speculation, has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources – a matter which does not seem, on-the-whole, to be a point of contention. Not even a quotable part of WP:BLP produces any immediately-obvious rationales for deletion. Instead, in my view, the article merely but brazenly violates the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPGOSSIP:

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject.

This article cuts against the spirit of the policy, not any quotable text that is particularly fitting to this article's case. Of course "what is and isn't the scope of the Wikipedia" is an appropriate discussion for an AfD, because we have WP:NOT, and I see no reason why we cannot add nots that we believe should reasonably exist at this AfD, especially given that this article is clearly an edge case that concerns a BLP. AfD isn't a court interpreting law; it's a community review process in which editors can exercise discretion. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some editors have remarked off-wiki that the article has the signature of a coatrack article, exemplified by the widespread dissatisfaction of the current article title and the lack of consensus for an alternative name. I think this is a symptom of the underlying problem – that the article is about a media craze. Finally, the speculation can be, and should be, adequately summarised in a few sentences in Catherine, Princess of Wales; I think a Merge is unnecessary as the sources are readily findable. Given the BLP violations, I think an eventual Redirect is fine, so long as the page history of the present article is deleted, which is why I am supporting Delete. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say this topic can no longer be "gossip" or recent as it has sustained enough wide-ranging and neutral coverage.

Slamforeman (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, Photography, Conspiracy theories, Royalty and nobility, Medicine, Internet, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to comments made two deletion proposals ago, this article increasingly resembles fancruft and has content that's only tenuously added (the Queen Victoria stuff and media navel gazing). Killuminator (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was debating whether to even get involved in this latest round of AfD but here we are. I think this is the sort of article Wikipedia should have from a reader's point of view - the reason I've known about the several different discussions around it is because I came to Wikipedia to try and find a well-written non-conspiratorial summary of this all. I think that's important to have, and I think (by and large) this article does that. For me, as long as it complies with policy, that's enough for a clear keep vote. I may be missing something obvious, but I don't see that the article violates the policies in question here; while this article could have been a pile of gossip (and I must commend the editors who have kept it from being so), I'm tending to think the different facets of the issue mean that it goes beyond that. In its current state, I personally don't see that it even violates the spirit of BLP or NOTNEWS. Having said all that, this is definitely a borderline case and I expect many editors will have different opinions to me. I do hope that this is the last time we have to have this discussion though! Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. Certainly an interesting case of mainstream gossip. At its core, it's gossip. But, in my opinion, this gossip has recieved a sufficient amount of coverage from non-gossip sources about where she was that it should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources say. Whether or not we like the coverage reliable sources gave this gossip, they gave it coverage and Wikipedia should reflect that. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Devi

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

The two sources listed here (one being a Who's Who) are not enough to establish the diverse coverage WP:GNG, and a quick search finds little on her. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBNI-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William McLean (Quebec politician)

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

Biography of a smalltown mayor not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As usual, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on a significant volume of reliable source coverage enabling us to write substantive content about their political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their mayoralty had on the development of the community, and on and so forth) -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source directory entries that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage in media or books shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Radenhurst Richmond Lyon

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

Unreferenced article about a political figure not shown as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he was mayor of a small town that has long since been eaten up as a city neighbourhood, which is not "inherently" notable in and of itself -- a mayor would have to pass WP:NPOL #2, which hinges on the depth of substance that can actually be written about his political impact and the volume of sourcing that can be shown to support it. But this is strictly on the level of "he is a mayor who existed, the end", and has been tagged as unsourced since 2009 without ever having any new references added to it. As well, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so he isn't automatically entitled to keep an unreferenced article just because some of his family members have articles. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimukhi Baavdi

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

No reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hinnigan

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

Unref blp, doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anas River, India

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

Fails WP:NGEO no reliable sources Sohom (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Som River

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

Fails WP:NGEO, no reliable sources. Google tells me https://guj-nwrws.gujarat.gov.in/showpage.aspx?contentid=1845&lang=english should be a source, however that appears to be statistics and a dead link. Sohom (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sipu River

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Gujarat, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Heinsohn

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sohag Jol

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

Only run of the mill coverage. Sohom (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:COI-problem is also possible. This article reads as work from the marketing department desperately looking for sources. The Banner talk 22:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ETopps

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

The article was subject to WP:BLAR due to lack of notability, and was later restored without any additional sources (and missing the previous hatnotes pointing to the fact). Since the deletion was objected to, and few sources do exist, bringing it here. My take is to Redirect, as my search of sources came up with very little. Викидим (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Websites, and Delaware. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinbadventurers

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

Not finding any good secondary sources outside the Norddeutscher Rundfunk review. No hits on ProQuest, which is always a bad sign for the notability of a contemporary western subject. Mach61 12:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I created this entry about this opera because there is very little information on it in English. Although one could make the case that there is insufficient source material in English to warrant a wikipedia entry, I'd like to make the argument that a lot of readers would appreciate having a well-written entry in English as opposed to a computer-generated translation of the German entry. Google the opera under its German title "sindbadauken" and I think you'll see why I wanted to fill this void. Cheers! Cosmomontoya (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmomontoya There's no requirement sources be in English, but I did searches under both the German and English titles. If you can find reliable sources covering this play in depth in any language, please link them here, and I may withdraw this AfD. Mach61 13:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to some of the publications that I compiled information from when creating the article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtRIX_hN3PU&ab_channel=operapiccola

https://www.abendblatt.de/hamburg/magazin/article205169549/Die-Hamburger-Sindbadauken.html

https://www.boosey.com/downloads/NB_Spezial_Kinderoper_web.pdf

https://www.francis-huesers.de/ver%C3%B6ffentlichungen/

https://www.francis-huesers.de/biographie/

https://www.theaterhagen.de/ueber-uns/schauspielermitarbeiter/?tx_theatre_actor%5Baction%5D=show&tx_theatre_actor%5Bactor%5D=1539&cHash=56264df84a11e77fc977e0753dc05562

https://issuu.com/staatsoper_hamburg/docs/oper_journal_3-14-15_b9c9088ff9088c

When I wrote the article, there was also a page on the composer's website which listed all of the cast members in English, however I'm not finding that anymore. This information looks like it is all on the YouTube page. Cosmomontoya (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmomontoya The Abendblatt source is the only relevant one mentioned for establishing compliance with the general notability guideline. While I suppose it counts, it's not very long, and much of its content is quotes by other people. Two relatively short reviews isn't enough to make a play notable IMO Mach61 22:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be sure that we're talking about the same thing: the work is not a play but rather an opera. Moreover, it's an opera performed by children. These are quite rare, and this particular one is worth inclusion because it is a through-composed work, meaning the work starts and ends without interruption, as opposed to a musical, which is a mixture of dialogue (like a play) and music numbers. Hope this helps to clarify the "genre." Cosmomontoya (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cosmomontoya as there is no specialized notability guideline for operas, they fall under the aforementioned general notability guideline (GNG); the nature of the opera isn't really relevant to notability. If a third GNG-meeting source can be located, I will withdraw this deletion discussion. Mach61 11:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mach61: What do you think of this source? I'm not sure what to make of it. Toughpigs (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs Though its the description entry for a recording of Sinbadventures, it mostly covers the opera piccola format without discussing this specific work in detail. Mach61 21:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Kolkata building collapse

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

Wikipedia is not news, this article does not pass WP:NEVENTS due to a lack of breadth of coverage. Sohom (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Court fire

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

Wikipedia is not news, there are no sources for this subject after the incident in 2010. As it currently stands, I don't think this article meets WP:NEVENTS due to a lack of breadth of coverage and a lack of lasting impact. Sohom (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and West Bengal. Sohom (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also unrelated commentary, how the freak did this become a GA? Sohom (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Basri Ridzuan

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

In his relatively short career, it doesn't appear that he garnered enough significant coverage to meet even #5 of WP:SPORTBASIC, which is the minimum requirement. The best sources found were HMetro and Bharian, neither of which address the subject in any detail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notability here or anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zarulizwan Mazlan

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

The current article doesn't show how the subject meets #5 of WP:SPORTBASIC and I wasn't able to find anything good in my searches. He is mentioned in passing on his FA's website about a youth fixture, NST, which mentions him in passing in a match report, and Bharian, another passing mention in a report about youth football. His entire career lasted only 170 mins and consisted only of games for Terengganu's reserve team. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:SIGCOV, as nom explains. A career wholly lacking notability. Anwegmann (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutiara Baswedan

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

This article was marked with notability concerns a month ago and looking at the articles cited, it seems that she is primarily notable for being the daughter of a governor/presidential candidate, which I think means she fails WP:GNG because she is not notable on her own. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Another case of WP:INVALIDBIO, as her notability is tied to her father. I proposed to redirect this article to Anies Baswedan#Family. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University of Muhammadiyah Aceh

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

There is only one source and it is clearly not notable, searching for the university also seems not to have produced anything notable. Hence, it likely fails WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Muhammadiyah is a notable religious organization in Indonesia and it's also operate several universities, which some of them have dedicated article on WP. However, due to its lower level of notability compared to other universities affiliated with Muhammadiyah. So I suggest to redirect it to Muhammadiyah#Universities. Ckfasdf (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Superintending Surveyor

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

Fails WP:GNG, nonnotable government position. Contested PROD. I don't think a redirect is the way to go, since "superintending surveyor" seems like a generic position. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil On Trial

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

I apparently clicked the wrong one and put this up as PROD. Sorry about that. So, the user who created the page has been blocked on multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স.

This page, before I did digging on it, was purely promotional. I added several sources (incidentally, my additions were the reason the PROD was removed), but I don't think this passes WP:NFILM, in my understanding.

It's possible that I'm not following something in the criteria that does make this notable, but I don't know that the documentary should have its own page. In reading the reviews, they focus mainly on the 1981 trial rather than on the film. Some of them mention The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It. One of them mentioned an older documentary that they said "did it better".

I'm willing to dig for more sources if the community decides as a whole that it passes WP:NFILM. 1 might apply b/c there are reviews. But: its only claim to "historical notability" is its coverage of a historical event, of which it is not unique; I saw no indication that the film is up for any kind of award; as far as I know it hasn't been selected for preservation in a national archive; nor did I find any notice of it being taught in an accredited university's film program.

As for the inclusionary criteria that aren't part of the top : it's not unique in any aspect of its production; there aren't any major film stars in it; and it was made by Netflix, so it doesn't fall under the third one.

So, before I spend another several hours sussing out sources for something that, frankly, I stumbled over because of a CS1 error and was erroneously marked as AFI, I thought there should be consensus that it actually passes WP:NFILM. OIM20 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Crime. OIM20 (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film only needs to fit one of the criteria of WP:NFILM to demonstrate notability. (Otherwise, every film described on Wikipedia would have to win an award and be preserved in an archive, which is an absurdly high bar.) So the relevant measure here is that it's received multiple reviews. In this case, the combo of the Time article and the New York Times article are enough to demonstrate notability. Good job on rescuing the article! Toughpigs (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. To clarify, I meant that the PROD I placed on it myself was removed because of the sources I had added in, before I put the PROD on it. The reason given for removing the PROD was only that there were a number of sources. From what you've said I understand that the reason was b/c of the reviews.

And to be fair, the two you mention were included in the promotional piece it was before, though the NYT review does not say what the article creator claimed it said.

Part of my concern stems from the fact that many of the reviews focus in a large part on the incident rather than on the film. I don't think I included many of those - it was wee hours for me and I've since closed those tabs. There were a lot of reviews, but not all of them from places that I think are considered RS.

But thank you for explaining. Since it only needs two reviews and it has a number, I will try to focus my research on the production and casting areas, to get a better source than IMDB. OIM20 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. What's the reason advanced for deletion exactly? The film received multiple reviews, including 1 in the NYT..... Strong keep. (I'm the one who deproDed the page, fwiw).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know you did. I'm not trying to be contrarian, though I'm sure it seems it. I really was thinking that this needed more than just reviews, so I misunderstood the criteria for NFILM. Not the first time I've misunderstood something.

After I realized that the AFI was placed on the article erroneously, I looked into the article creator's talk page and found the note about them being a banned user. I realized when looking at the other pages in drafts listed on their talk page that they were posting promotional articles - which was what the other cleanup on the article you took care of (the sections I stopped at b/c I wasn't sure continuing would be worth the effort if it was just going to get nuked) were. Thank you for taking care of that.

Thank you for your patience. I still consider myself relatively new. I'm trying to learn. OIM20 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to lowercase "on" if we keep it or recreate it again. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @OIM20: thank you for your clarifications and concern. Two things, though: 1) the user who created the page has been blocked on multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/সিডাটিভ হিপনোটিক্স: no, I read the page and I'm sorry but that's not accurate. The page creator is NOT blocked and he says he's not the person in question. Can I ask you to strike that comment or to rephrase that bit of your rationale at the very least, please? 2) Did I understand your current position: you now think the film is notable, am I right? Would you consider withdrawing? It might save other contributors some time. Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank), 22:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragged Islands

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

This was created many years ago by a banned user. It is unsourced. I don't think it's a hoax, although it seems more likely based on my WP:BEFORE that there are a group of islands called Ragged Islands but not a "settlement" with that name. In any event, even if the place as named exists, I don't believe it meets the low bar of WP:NPLACE. Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This does exist as a group of islands, but not as a named settlement as the article claimed. I've rephrased it accordingly, but cannot find adequate sourcing to say anything more than "this exists, the end" — so even rewritten it still can't stick around without sourcing, but no prejudice against recreation if somebody can write something more substantial with better sources than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W30CV-D

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in South Carolina#LPTV stations: I'd at least like to think there is more likely to be at least some coverage of a low-power station that has local programming and a 30-plus year history (and will happily amend my !vote if any signfiicant coverage surfaces), but it's difficult to justify (particularly under the stricter standards of 2024, as opposed to 2006) retaining such a short and minimally-sourced (databases and the station website don't count toward the GNG) article that has attracted some COI editing over the past decade. An ((R to list entry)) may well be more than enough here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXSX-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but national programming services, undoubtedly no significant coverage — this article is a clear remnant of the much looser standards of 2006. (Disclosure: I was the creator of this article back in those long-ago days and would never create anything like today.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Shara

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

Cricketer Lugstub that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. (proposed by JTtheOG) Avishai11 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and Olympics. Avishai11 (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avishai11 Can you explain me why you removed the PROD and immediately nominated it for deletion via AFD? Uncontested PROD would anyway get deleted in 7 days' time. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my gosh! I am so sorry, as this was an accident. I clicked the wrong button. Is there any way to undo this? Avishai11 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low Pavement, Chesterfield

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

I have not been able to find significant coverage of this road in reliable sources. The sources in the article are listings of individual buildings, but there's no evidence those buildings meet WP:NBUILDING. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and England. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Low Pavement is mentioned in various directories from the 19th Century, two of which I've just added, not to mention 5 (technically 6) different listed buildings on the small street. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listings in directories are not significant coverage, and having listed buildings doesn't establish notability of the street that they're on. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a couple of books that noted during the 1970s, the town council intended to demolish the buildings on the street, however decided the buildings together were considered to be of 'township merit' which is why the buildings are all listed around that time period. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources seem to be talking more about the neighborhood overall, rather than Low Pavement, which is mentioned but not described in detail. The false bomb threat is a minor aspect of the street and doesn't contribute to the street's notability, nor is a bomb threat in itself notable per WP:1E. Additionally, while Chesterfield Market is likely notable, that doesn't mean Low Pavement is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added another notable event, the then Prince Charles and Princess Diana opening The Pavements Shopping Center on the street in November 1981, another surely notable event. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There need to be sources showing that the street is notable, which means that it has significant coverage in reliable sources. The fact that an event occurred on the street does not mean that the street itself is notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 Grade II listed buildings, 2 Grade II listed Light posts, one of the oldest open-air markets in the country. the current king of England opening an indoor marketplace, and a recent bomb threat, I think that's plenty enough to prove the street's significance, but I'm of course happy to let others decide on this. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSCG-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WSCG-TV: Honestly, given the fact that WSCG-LD once operated as an sattlelite station of WSCG as WGSA until they lost the rights to The CW by WSAV-DT2, that would be a really simple thing to do. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 17:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television stations in South Carolina#LPTV stations: it says a lot about how the notability standard in this topic area has tightened in the past few years that the nominator happens to be the article creator. I'd be surprised if either of these stations (WSCG-LD is largely simulcast on WGCB-LD) ever aired any programming not originated elsewhere, or attained significant coverage at all. (Note that the WGCB-LD redirect should instead be retargeted to List of television stations in Georgia (U.S. state)#LPTV stations.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A little note, the reason why I decided to vote on redirecting it to WSCG-TV is because of the historical reason. (The article mentioned it) mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 20:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Schepers

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

Does not appear notable. Avishai11 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. Avishai11 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty promising with entries – per the authority control – in national and international databases? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Goswami

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

Non notable person, unclaimed married person and there’s no claim 100% which makes in Durg criminal HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HarshalDhotre06 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Kenya, South Africa, Gujarat, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher John Fields

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

WP:BLP of a theatre director, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for theatre directors. The main notability claim on offer here is that his work exists, which isn't "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it, but the sole footnote offers a blurb's worth of information about him in the process of being fundamentally about something else, which isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and California. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Khodunov

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

Doesn't seem to meet #5 of WP:SPORTBASIC and his professional career consisted only of 293 mins of game time. I found no decent coverage in Belarusian and Russian searches yielded only a trivial match report mention in Gorod214 and a list of footballers sitting on the bench in the same source. Neither of these show WP:SIGCOV. The articles in both Belarusian Wikipedias also don't show SIGCOV, just database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this fails WP:SIGCOV. I'm not sure about WP:SPORTBASIC, but that's no matter. Anwegmann (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buyout (disambiguation)

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

Another bad dab page with only two legitimate entries, for which WP:TWODABS applies. Nearly all of the other entries can be or already are mentioned in the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Bhatia

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

I don't see any reason for the existence of the article. Sources are mentions only. Failing WP:GNG, WP:INVALIDBIO as well as WP:THREE per WP:RS. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, India, and United Kingdom. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shanique Palmer

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

Fails WP:BIO. The best of the otherwise useless current set of references is an article about her regaining her figure after her pregnancy, hardly the stuff needed to satisfy WP:GNG. The best I could find is this article/video. Clarityfiend (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FC Indiana Girls Academy

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The PROD was removed with the rationale that this should be merged and redirected to the main F.C. Indiana article but seeing as the title is incorrect and the page has been tagged as having no sources since 2015, I can't go along with that option. Let'srun (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Indiana. Let'srun (talk) 14:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Rock Co. 10

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

Unsourced & unnotable (likely of interest only to trainspotters) 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Helo Cremastra! I have seen your message earlier about the deletion of the page.

I deeply apologize for not including sources to the locomotive's page, if anything, i'll do more research of the locomotive for references, sources, etc. And rewrite alot of stuff in the page if mostly everything is inaccurate.

If no sources of sorts are found, then i'll gladly help you to delete the page.

Cheers and Happy Easter! Christian40213 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Research has been done,and alot has been changed!

If it isn't enough, i'll gladly research more :p Christian40213 (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Christian40213 (Happy Easter to you, too). Thanks for your work! Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policies of "notability" are somewhat stringent. I've looked at the sources you added to the article and made a table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
TrainChasers.com	No apparent connection to the subject	? Fan site, reliability unclear (see WP:SELFPUB)	Article is entirely about the train.	? Unknown
California State Railroad Museum	No apparent connection to the subject	Probably, respectable museum	Detailed coverage of the subject	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Because WP:GNG requires multiple, reliable sources, notability remains... unclear. It's best to let other editors weigh in, and the discussion will be closed in seven days (or more, if we can't agree). Don't worry about it, there are lots of new users to Wikipedia and I'm happy to help. Cheers, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hey,thanks for the heads up!

I did a bit more digging and found 2 more reliable sites on which they talked about the locomotive, one had a very,very summarized version of the story,which added a bit more, and the other was a railways news forum that talked about her being out of service and her getting restored back in 1996

I'll do a more extense research tomorrow

Cheers! Christian40213 (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A++

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

bundled nomination. all three articles were created by gploc, and cover essentially the same topic.

gploc is the creator of these languages - he owns the websites https://lambda-bound.de/ and https://lambda-bound.com/. i do not know what the first one is, but the second promotes a book about a++.

a quick look for sources all lead back to primary sources and this book.

this nomination is bundled with:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The language author has apparently written quite a lot on this topic, but as far as I can tell, one blog aside, nobody else has. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete as A412. Notability would stem from multiple independent sources, and these just aren't independent of the language author. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find sources apart from the author about these topics when I searched. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect A++ to A+, delete others A+ is definitely a plausible typo, but the concept itself here is non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anil V. Kumar

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

Failed WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR also Wikipedia general notability criteria. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR/WP:FILMMAKER as director of multiple notable series.......Added a few sources for verification.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:DIRECTOR. Has several notable directions.

Rydex64 (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG per WP: SIGCOV. A bit WP: DIRECTOR since some of the films which are inarguably notable were co-directed. As the case may be, the subject passes WP: CREATIVE in filmmaking having been cited in sources for his Entertaining styles and film directing. Fills a bit of WP: ENT All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like XFDcloser failed the "transclude to new log" again on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Hepburn

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

No significant coverage here, largely a collection of obituaries and an article in CTInsider from a "oldsaybrookhistory@gmail.com". WP:GNG seems to be failed here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Connecticut. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in many books and periodicals. Amongst other coverage, she actually has an obituary in the New York Times [15]. There is also one in United Press International [16] and there are book reviews [17] [18] and other coverage of her books [19], amongst other coverage. James500 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns, and saw this as well. My concern here is that I'm not sure a single notable source covering one notable event of her life is enough to satisfy WP:GNG, particularly with respect to WP:BIO1E. I will grant that NYT is a very notable source, but I think more sources would be needed here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said "amongst other coverage". I have just added some additional items, and I could add even more. An obituary is a biography, not coverage of the event of a person's death, so BIO1E is not applicable. The obituary is not purely about her death, its also about her career as a historian and author, and her activist activities. I have never heard of a person with an NYT obituary being deleted, and I am under the impression that the community generally regard it as being overwhelming evidence of notability. James500 (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few people with NYT obits not considered a good way of establishing notability beyond the death itself (see WP:OBITUARIES). The remaining books you cite seem to be tangential coverage, hence, not good for establishing notability.

As for the WP:REDACT violation, I will WP:AGF, and WP:MUTUAL it. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am alarmed to see you edit a comment after someone has already responded to it, which violates WP:REDACT. Please put your changes below as a reply to the comment. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am alarmed to see an account with less than 970 edits, mostly made in a sudden recent burst, that has just nominated a person with an NYT obituary for deletion, badgering my !vote, and then wikilawyering, in an attempt to prevent me from adding additional sources. What you are asking me to do would make my !vote incomprehensible to the closing admin. James500 (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just want to be clear here that I wasn't assuming you were acting in bad faith here, I was merely concerned about the clarity of the discussion. (It generally makes sense in these cases for somebody to just say "hey I found some sources here" below to reinforce your point above rather than pre-address the comments be editing your vote, which can be quite confusing for people reading the discussion.) I was merely making a good faith request here, and apologize if it seemed like I was casting WP:ASPERSIONS. That being said, please refrain from doing the same to me. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly happy to WP:MUTUAL the whole thing. I accept that you were not trying to upset me, and I promise I was not trying to upset you either. No hard feelings? James500 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None whatsoever here, and I appreciate your feedback on this AfD, even if I may disagree with it. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. In addition to the NYT and UPI obituaries, here's a front-page one from the Hartford Courant: [20], [21]. A 1981 profile: [22]. She was making headlines for her writerly ambitions as a teenager: [23]. Jfire (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia De La Rama

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

This one is sort of on the edge here but, after a search, I found one article (an opinion) online, in addition to the articles here which seem to only make references to her in passing (as the wife of Sukarno). She does seem to notable for appearing in two films but in secondary roles. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moesa Pancho

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

The tempo articles are advertisements, and the rest seem to be largely copies of that advertisement. Hence, seems to fail WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youngboi OG

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources that aren't deadlinks are all UGC. I'm not entirely convinced this isn't a G3 but I don't particularly feel the need for this to be speedied either, already had an admin look at it privately. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perang Sosoh Pedekik 1949

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

There are only two sources for this film. One does not seem to mention the film by name, and one seems to be a local government website. Hence, I do not think it passes WP:NFILM, or WP:GNG Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Indonesia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not met notability requirements as outlined in WP:NFILM. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 1955 Stadium (El Oued)

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

Stub article about a non notable football stadium. I have redirected it to the parent club US Souf where all the info already exists but the creator objects. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Mccapra (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to US Souf as it is primarily a football stadium; it is not even mentioned at El Oued. Giant Snowman 12:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust AM

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

Even under the old, much looser guidance of WP:BCAST this type of internal carrier-current radio service wouldn't have made the cut without also passing GNG. Under WP:BCASTOUTCOMES it definitely needs to pass GNG, and there is nothing out there to suggest it does. Flip Format (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I disagree that it fails on notability issues as it covers a number of sites and has a history of broadcasting on AM rather than just as an internal carrier-current station. However, the article needs more references to fully secure its place on Wikipedia.Rillington (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Installer

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

The article's notability is questionable as it does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:SIGCOV, which necessitates substantial coverage from reputable and independent sources. Moreover, the absence of proper citations or references to substantiate the information presented further weakens its credibility. The article also does not comply with the guidelines outlined in WP:NSOFT, which are essential for a standalone article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PanEuropa Armenia

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

Branch of Paneuropean Union, merge into the article? IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Armenia. IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep- There are thousands of stand-alone "branch organization" articles from unions, to student organizations, political parties, etc. In this case, PanEuropa Armenia is the only "PanEuropa" branch which has a Wiki article. Merging would mean giving the Armenian branch complete undue weight (WP:RSUW) in the article. In addition, PEA highlights very topic specific activities which would seem totally out of place in Paneuropean Union. There are certain goals and objectives that the PEA focuses on that Paneuropean Union does not, and vice versa. Just as in the case that it wouldn't make sense to merge Volt Italy into Volt Europa. They focus on "country specific" issues that would be out of place in the main article. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The issue is that the branch doesn't appear to have WP:SIGCOV. Which is different from party Volt, which country parties all have articles, so this is at least novel. Weight needs to be considered with a merge, but it can be more of a redirect if it is a problem. IgelRM (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect I counted at least 4 citations to Facebook and one to YouTube. These are not enough for GNG or SIGCOV. If we merge only the reliably sourced content the weight problems at the merge target will be minimal. Ben Azura (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind uploading in fiction

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

The topic is likely notable (see SFE), but our execution is terrible. First, the prose part is pretty much unreferenced (the article is tagged with OR warning for 5 years now), then a gigantic list of random examples (mostly unreferenced too), failing WP:OR/WP:V/WP:IPC/MOS:TRIVIA/WP:NLIST/WP:NOTTVTROPES/etc. Mind uploading does not have a section about 'fiction/culture', just mentions this article in lead. Looking at article's history, this was split (exorcised...) from the main article in the old 00's, and of course it had no references or such ([24]). The article hasn't been improved since, quality wise, just accumulated more fancruft. WP:TNT is required. For now, this can be WP:ATD-Rredirected to the main article, with no prejudice for this being restored as an article - but it will need to be rewritten from scratch using reliable sources like the SFE article I've linked. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, Science, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not commenting on the contents of the article. However, it should be brought to everyone's attention that several prominent (controversial) figures have claimed Mind uploading will be reality in the not-to-distant future (see Mind uploading#Advocates) including Elon Musk (Elon Musk’s Big Neuralink Paper: Should We Prepare For The Digital Afterlife?. One would suspect that fiction would be a good source for trying to understand such a world. I am not so sure WP:TNT is necessary. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeFriendlyGoodSir We do have an article on reality (science) at Mind uploading. And fiction article would be good to have too - but fancruft is realistically not rescuable; experience shows that noone wants to spend countless hours verifying/referencing such stuff - only solution is to blow this up, and write something from scratch, using sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing WP:OR but I disagree with removing all content that is not original research. Why not add a flag at the top of the page asking for citations? The current one only applies to WP:OR. If you TNT this, I would not be surprised if this article gets rewritten again to the same size without any citations added all over. Let's save volunteer time where possible. Regarding your fancruft concern, I think that can be fixed. - 04:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination statement cites WP:MOS, which is about how we present information, not what we cover, implying that the problems here are surmountable and deletion is unnecessary. Ping me if MOS statements are stricken from the nomination statement. Jclemens (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of problems with presentation necessarily making problems with substance surmountable is certainly a position you can take, but it's not a particularly coherent one. I am sure you would agree that if somebody makes an incorrect statement riddled with typos, fixing the latter would not somehow resolve the factual inaccuracies. TompaDompa (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS is relevant. That policy warns, for example, that "When not effectively curated, such material can attract trivial references or otherwise expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies such as what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view." as well "A Wikipedia article may include a subject's cultural impact by summarizing its coverage in reliable secondary or tertiary sources (e.g., a dictionary or encyclopedia). A source should cover the subject's cultural impact in some depth; it should not be a source that merely mentions the subject's appearance in a movie, song, television show, or other cultural item." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify This page requires a full rewrite and is currently inappropriate for Wikipedia, lacking citations and being largely WP:OR. It is an example of a viable subject with an unencyclopedic page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim and add reliable sources. I will help in this effort. Perhaps this should be renamed List of Mind uploading in fiction instead of going in depth on a few books in the intro. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a list approach is really the opposite of what we should be doing to clean this up. In the past, what has worked when it comes to fixing these types of articles has been to rewrite them essentially from scratch in a prose format using sources on the overarching topic—see e.g. WP:Articles for deletion/Eco-terrorism in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Earth in science fiction (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Supernovae in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Neptune in fiction, WP:Articles for deletion/Genies in popular culture (2nd nomination), WP:Articles for deletion/Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture, WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination), and WP:Articles for deletion/Time viewer. Or just recently, WP:Articles for deletion/Tachyons in fiction (2nd nomination) (though I can't vouch for the quality of that one as I haven't taken a particularly close look at the new version). TompaDompa (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overhauling is needed, not deletion. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be agreement both that the topic is notable and that the article as it existed at time of nomination was not in an acceptable state. I took a look at the article and the sources and concluded that it would be way less effort to start over from scratch than to attempt to salvage the mess that was there. We now have a very brief start for a properly-sourced article (courtesy link to the version as of my writing this for future reference). It could certainly be expanded (at least somewhat), though I don't anticipate finding the time to do so within the relatively-near future. I invite everyone who commented above to consider whether it would be better to keep this here for future expansion or to merge it to the main mind uploading article. @Piotrus, BeFriendlyGoodSir, Jclemens, Zxcvbnm, and ArvindPalaskar: What do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 02:28, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the current scrap of an article that remains, merging is a better idea than retaining it there. It's clearly a subtopic and marked as such; subtopics should be split off when the amount of content necessitates a split. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am totally fine, as usual, with the TNT-and-rewrite approach, and TD's version is acceptable to me. If it is not merged, it should be added as a new section with the 'main' link to the subarticle (that can likely be expanded). In fact, I'll do it now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WECU-TV

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

Fails WP:GNG; unencyclopedic tone; most references are primary sources. Merge with East Carolina University#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WECU-TV was an independent television station owned by the State of NC since the early 1970s and was no longer a part of the ECU community from early 1970s through 2014. It was closed by the State of NC in 2014. 2603:6081:1600:2A8:CC04:25E2:DBE3:B46A (talk) 06:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources and we could find some.

I think this might work. For this reason, I'm Undecided. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 07:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as proposed What a confusingly worded article. Was "WECU-TV" just airtime bought on the UNC-TV station? A cable channel? It certainly was not a full-fledged broadcast TV station that merits an article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've been through this article about six times and all I could really pull out is that it was a PEG channel or possibly a closed circuit channel using WUNK-TV's spectrum, but it could also be completely invented by someone who futzes around on Fandom/Logopedia. With none of the sources active or going to 'page not found' errors, I'm directing myself towards the latter. Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with East Carolina University#Student life: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A partial merge to the target article suggested by the nominator is a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major achievements in figure skating by nation

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

I don't see how this article doesn't violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Ignoring the blatant MOS:ACCESS issues with the tables (which I could address), these tables constitute original research and an assemblage of indiscriminate statistics. The very first table, for example, simply shows that Russia has won a gold medal in each of the listed events, but not how many, and then an unsourced total on the right column. Additionally, synchronized skating is (unfortunately) a separate entity from other figure skating disciplines. This is another example of someone treating Wikipedia like a figure skating fan wiki. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYNTH per nom. In cases like this where there are many possible methods by which to synthesize the raw results from many competitions into an overall ranking, it is not upon Wikipedia to select one of them to crown the top nations. A mainspace article that promotes the personal opinion of one or two editors of how this should be done (i.e. what should count as a "major achievement") is a WP:NPOV violation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Major achievements in sports by nation exist for other sports. Listing how many medals each nation one, is acceptable. References can easily be found on pages linked to or from official sites for these various games. Category:Lists of figure skating medalists also exist. This is useful for having all the games they can win medals together easily found in a nice layout, just like all the other articles of this type. Dream Focus 21:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE, that would be a reason to consider deleting them all rather than keeping this one. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think these tables constitute a “nice layout”? I think they’re appalling. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using a cell phone or are you zoomed in too much on the article? How is it different than any other table on Wikipedia? Dream Focus 23:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are all sorts of MOS violations. I am willing to correct the tables, but I don't want to do any more work on them until this AFD has been decided. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:SYNTH. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this synth? Listing what medals each country won, is not synth, it just an easily proven fact. Dream Focus 22:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was already explained above. Deciding on a particular method for combining that information about individual medals into an overall ranking - e.g. have Wikipedia crown Russia as the all-time top nation in "All competitive disciplines", beating Canada and the United States - is WP:SYNTH and also a WP:NPOV violation. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NEXIST where a quick search reveals that reliable independent sourcing exists for all of this and, as such, is not a SYNTH violation. If you claim this should be deleted, you are promoting a WP:Trainwreck. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please show some sources that prove that this article is notable and not just a SYNTH- better than claiming sources exist, please demonstrate some decent and appropriate sourcing. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article links to the official websites showing the information already! Dream Focus 22:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This claim appears to be false. Or which web pages exactly of those currently linked under Major_achievements_in_figure_skating_by_nation#References contain these country rankings as shown in the article? Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simple math is not Synth. Not does it say its ranking them in an official capacity. If that's your only complaint, then just remove the No. column. Dream Focus 06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SYNTH concerns raised above weren't primarily about the counting across those many different websites, but there are likely to be non-trivial decisions involved there too.

In any case I'm glad that we appear to agree that the rankings are not official, i.e. that this article is making proclamations in Wikipedia voice of who the all-time top country in each discipline and even overall is. That is highly problematic, also given how contested such nation rankings in sports can be at times. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Chennai

AfDs for this article:

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context. This has even been deleted previously. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whole article is a trivia. Orientls (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about Lucknow

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Ahmedabad. The list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN and WP:OR. There is little to nothing worthwhile in this list, be it content or context (and not one single source). Geschichte (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion as part of a bundle nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about Bangalore, which closed as keep on 24 February 2018. I quote a relevant interaction between @RoySmith and Narky Blert:

*Keep all. I looked at one of these, List of songs about Lucknow, in detail. It looks like it meets WP:LISTN to me. LISTN says, it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Well, we've got a source, 10 Bollywood Songs That Has Captured Lucknow And Its Charm. That sure seems like it meets the LISTN requirement. I only looked at the others more briefly, but at first glance, they seem like they meet LISTN as well. Bundling all of these into a single AfD doesn't help, because perhaps some are notable and some are not. I would suggest keeping them all for now and allowing (WP:NPASR) people to bring back specific ones that they really feel fail LISTN. That fact that the creator of this lists has subsequently been banned is immaterial. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
That means that both List of songs about Delhi and List of songs about Lucknow have independent sources which relate to those two lists as lists per se. The proposed multiple deletion is therefore unjustified. These lists need to be discussed individually.

I agree that it's the content of the article which matters, even if it was posted by a banned user. Narky Blert (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The source in question (now a dead URL) was removed by GermanJoe in October 2018 with the edit summary: rmv - not a reliable source. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "List of songs about [X city]" articles should be evaluated on their own merits, and some such articles definitely have a claim to notability, for cities that have been the subject of several notable songs or songs by notable artists, and whose songs have been discussed as a set in independent, reliable sources. Like the nominator, I find that this list fails WP:LISTN and WP:OR. Any notable songs can be discussed in a "In popular culture" section or similar at Lucknow. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting. I can't tell if IgnatiusofLondon is offering an opinion here (please BOLD) or just catching us up on the history here but since the article was part of a previous bundled nomination, it's not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One is a comment, one is a !vote :)) IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, IgnatiusofLondon. I misread your comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As stated, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The International Resource Privilege

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

Incoherent start/stub article with a references list that despite its surface impressiveness doesn’t seem to demonstrate notability. While I personally agree completely with the sentiments expressed, it’s quite unclear that it passes encyclopedic muster, in my opinion. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Adolf, Prince of Bentheim and Steinfurt

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

Fails WP:GNG. The principality of Bentheim and Steinfurt was mediatized in 1806. His and his son's war service is not notable enough for an article. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 06:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A head of a defunct house is still notable. This was on the “Did you know” part on the main page. Azarctic (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: There is no link from any 'Did you know' archive to this article, nor any notice on the talk page that the article was once on 'Did you know'. The article had existed for less than 24 hours prior to nomination for deletion. DrKay (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant IRS coverage. Article is cobbled together from passing mentions and primary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous arguments.

98.228.137.44 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Augusta of Solms-Braunfels

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apart from her marriage the article is entirely about her relations. Sourced only to one directory and three self-published genealogical websites. DrKay (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 07:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very little is actually about her. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland Hospital Radio

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Medicine, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Channel U (Singapore)

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

Fails NLIST and NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a TVGuide. // Timothy :: talk 14:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1768 China sorcery panic

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

This article appears to be based mostly or entirely on a single source, to the point that it may qualify as copyright infringement. Whether the stated topic is notable is questionable; few sources other than the one used discuss it in any detail. As I noted in a previous discussion on this page, it's possible that the book itself is notable, but for the time being I'd suggest just deleting this page. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and China. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created in 2020 by a student editor with 29 edits: all except the few statutory student guided-tour edits are on this article, and all were made between March and June 2020. No substantial edits (beyond gnomish fixes) have been made to the article since. All but 5 of the 51 citations are to Philip A. Kuhn's 1990 book Soulstealers. Kuhn makes clear this is a study, a single example of a sorcery panic; the other sources indicate similar witch-hunts around the world, and closely-similar "queue"- (pigtail-) stealing incidents at other times in China. Even Kuhn, therefore, does not assert that the 1768 incident that he uses as an example is "notable" in Wikipedia's terms: it is not, as nobody else has chosen to write about it. On the other hand, Witch-hunt is certainly notable, and is a reasonable redirect target. An alternative would be to create a stubby article from this one, Queue-cutting sorcery panics in China, giving the four dates (1768, 1810, 1867, and 1908) and trying to say a little (in balance) about each one. I'll support either the redirect or the reshaping as folks prefer; both solutions will result in most of the material here being cut. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Paranormal, and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Seems to meet GNG. It has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ziff (Book of Mormon)

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

This is a Sunday school lesson with no available independent reliable sources Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an article about a piece of trivia; created 20 years ago, it hasn't improved much then, and improvement isn't possible because there isn't a body of secondary sources with meaningful coverage to cite. If there were Sunday School lessons, then there might be studies of its theological/cultural reception by the relevant religious community, but that's not the case. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICT Speculation about one lone un-defined word found only twice in the Book of Mormon. — Maile (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inverse Ninjas VS. The Public Domain

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

Unfortunately non-notable. The article has secondary sources cited, each of them citing the game as an example of a trend of creative properties emerging after the expiry of Steamboat Willie in the public domain. In terms of the details about the game, the sources at best just repeat what the game page has to say. The sources lack reception and reviews about the game in a manner necessary to indicate that this game has notability beyond the novelty of its exploitation of the recent Steamboat Willie public domain. Given the specific context of the coverage, I would be comfortable to also consider merging this to Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse although I can't comment on the strength of that article. Welcome any views or additional sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for advertising. I personally think Works based on a copyright-free Mickey Mouse fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE so I will not suggest a merge. The Steamboat Willie Mickey is just a curiosity meaning nothing, when we can make a full "Non-Disney works based on Mickey Mouse" and he is fully in the public domain, it may become more relevant. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Factions of Halo

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't believe this is notable as a group. It is largely Halo's gameplay not its universe; so merging it to Halo (franchise) seems to be more appropriate. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per nom. The article fails to make a good argument for how the factions have been discussed as a group. The Covenant and Flood are notable, but they already have their own articles. The rest can be summarized on the series page fairly easily if the extraneous material is removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Polygon spends the better first half of this article discussing the factions [25], and there's [26] and [27] if you like Valnet, but there's less out there than I would have guessed. The thing stopping me from !voting merge is that the suggested target article is already 6,600 words, and merging even a portion of this 4,300 word article is well into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a merge to List of Halo characters could work? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is large but a lot of the development section may be redundant. It's not even specifically about the factions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vaamana

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

Setting aside the sock and likely UPE on this page, I do not see reliable sources verifying this was even released. There are some minor sources and one I found that falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Nothing else. CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajdah Places in Quran

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

Cannot find actual sources that state "Sajdah Places in Quran" and also per WP:NOTGUIDE. Also I know AFDNOTCLEANUP but this is written religiously. 🍪 CookieMonster 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Sujud Tilawa seems an obvious solution, given that the opening words are "Sajda in Quran, also known as Sujud at-Tilawah" (with a piped link). Any encyclopedic content here that can be sourced can be added to that page. UrielAcosta (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sujud Tilawa. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daraja Press

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

No independent sources about the publisher. Suggesting redirect to Firoze Manji. IgelRM (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three independent sources about the publisher: AELAQ. “Daraja Press.” The Association of English-Language Publishers of Quebec, 2023. http://darajapress.com.

Alllitup.ca. “Daraja Press,” 2024. https://alllitup.ca/publishers/daraja-press/.

Radical Publishing Futures 5: Daraja Press, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_64q7S7IB-A.

Here are the books published by the publisher available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=%22Daraja+Press%22

Here are the mentions of Daraja Press on Archive.org: https://archive.org/search?query=%22Daraja+Press%22&sin=TXT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of those 3, only Radical Publishing Futures is not a database etc and the podcast episode is an interview with the founder. IgelRM (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book publisher - They are well known for their books. What are examples of sources from other publishers to substantiate relevance, that are not present here? It seems that the source requirements requested are incredibly high. If the sources provided so far are not enough, it would seem that most publishers releasing books primarily from minority authors from developing countries would be excluded from wikipedia. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grantennis (talk • contribs) 11:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOVO Solingen

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

Company fails WP:NCORP and WP:NCOMPANY. Refs are routine news, product launches, growth reports, in violation of WP:SIRS, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ROUTINE - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom The Trash Compactor (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE. — Maile (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These are the only articles that I can find on google when I search DOVO Solingen. Although WP:GOOGLEHITS is generally no guarantee that the subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, I have seen no indication that it meets requirements. Additionally, of the 6 sources shown on the Wiki page, 4 of them are sourced directly from the DOVO website, 1 is apparently from a book I can't view, and another is from thelocalde. Please do correct me if you see otherwise but I see no proof of enduring or present notability. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Life Sciences

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSOFT, lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS that aren't primary sources or press releases. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and United States of America. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as first preference, otherwise merge into another article - absolutely this article desperately needs work (hence the topic on the talk page), but a pretty quick search shows me that there is reasonable degree of notability. A 5-second search shows me that Oracle Argus, just one of Life Sciences' products, has been highlighted in recent journal articles about the role of digital solutions in pharmacovigilance and medication safety for example ([28]). Also, just to note that WP:NSOFT is a user essay that failed promotion to a guideline, and looks specifically at articles about individual software rather than articles about the companies that make those platforms. Tim (Talk) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Vinga

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

Associate prof, some early career awards, decent number of citations but perhaps not especially high. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. Might be WP:TOOSOON or WP:MILL. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Portugal. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Associate professor doing what professors do... I don't find notability, or much of any sourcing we can use. Primary sources are used for the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Delete and WP:TOOSOON. I'd like to see lots and lots of researchers in Wikipedia, but the vast majority will never reach the bar of general notability, unfortunately. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability is mainly "local" (national prizes in Mathematics and from the University of Lisbon, as mentioned).

Main achievements in alignment-free sequence analysis and comparison (link to page), and internationally in 2% of highly-cited researchers (2021 and career) by "Stanford University has released its global list that represents the top 2% of Scientists in various disciplines, on 10-10-2022" - DOI: 10.17632/btchxktzyw.4) (not yet on the page). 193.136.100.230 (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like that citation. Thanks. -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some looking into this data. Vinga is listed in the main sub-category of "bioinformatics". Based on her full career publication and citation record, the Stanford data places her at rank 91 out of 7,142 in this broad subfield; I believe this is a figure that supports her notability ... but need additional measures. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think her citation record [29] is strong enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks - reviewing this ... -- User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
item G. in this Guideline states "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is not based on the number of works the subject has authored. It is based on the number of times those works were cited. Six publications with triple-digit citation counts (one with almost quadruple digits) is a good record, one that indicates that her works are having a substantial impact on other researchers in the area. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an h-index of 29 alone (rather low in a highly cited field such as biology) does not denote "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline [...] as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." as the "independent reliable sources" part is missing. No major award either, so I do not see any WP:NACADEMIC criteria being fulfilled. Broc (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "independent reliable sources" are the 4282 academic publications that cite hers. That's what that phrase in that criterion means: many publications that cite the works of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, h = 29 is not impressive in her field. To check, I looked at the data for another Portuguese informatician that I know (I won't give his name). He is probably 15 to 20 years older (important, because everyone's h increases with age), but it's hard to tell, because her article doesn't say when she was born and we don't know how long ago the photo was taken. Anyway, my informatician has a Google h = 60, and his most cited publication has 3800 citations. Athel cb (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per David Eppstein. The h-index argument is convincing. I'd like to see some kind of support for Broc's claim that h-indices run high in Biology. Central and Adams (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a well known fact, but here's an article [30] where it is stated "For Biology [...] very highly cited scientists have h ≈ 150". So in my opinion an academic with h-index of 29 in biology is not at all "highly cited", hence doesn't meet C1. Broc (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Broc, I don't even look at those things. If we cannot cite a specific instance of someone citing the work and proving its importance, what are we doing? Drmies (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Drmies I fully agree. Not one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on her field of study has been brought up in this AfD. The only "keep" !votes entirely rely on the argument "she has many citations so she must be notable" and I wanted to show how this argument is faulty, as she is not a highly cited author in her field. Your argument still stand, and I agree with it: we do not want to host resumes of WP:MILL academics on Wikipedia. Broc (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - The reason we have NPROF#C1 is that there may not be one single reliable secondary sources describing the impact of the subject on [their] field. Academic work can be quite significant before authors of the secondary lit catch on and this notability criterion is meant to account for that. Central and Adams (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Central and Adams, I am not at all convinced that that is the reason we have it. I think we have it because it's a thing that counts in some parts of academia at some points--in tenure and promotion. I had a look through the talk page archives of PROF, and what is obvious to me is (I'm summarizing from a few comments by editors like DGG and Randykitty--I cannot claim to have done a comprehensive survey) that any index is a rough guide (and that's still in PROF, at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Citation_metrics), and that writing an article based on those metrics is, ahem, difficult. Plus, your argument is kind of contradictory. If a scholar is cited, then one should expect the citation to say something meaningful about the research or the scholar that was cited, unless, unless! we're just refbombing, like we do in certain disciplines (not mine). Having read quite a few sociology articles recently I'm even less infatuated with indices, and on top of that are the problems noted in various talk page discussions with Google Scholar. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        In the sciences authors are cited in research articles to acknowledge their original results, not to discuss the results or explain their meaning or impact. Those things are the province of expository writing rather than research. Scientists can have astonishing impacts on their field without being discussed in expository or other kinds of secondary writing. In the social sciences and humanities it's necessary to discuss these things in actual research because there's no epistemological consensus, but this doesn't happen in the sciences. No question that indicies are a rough guide, but I guess that's why we're having this discussion! Central and Adams (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you have a slightly optimistic view of the academic publishing industry. And I'm sorry, but about differing epistemologies leading to different kinds of consensus, I think you are wrong. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see an h-index argument--I see a citation, not an argument. I do see a counter argument to that claim. What I see is a resume without any secondary sources; primary/company links and Wikipedia articles don't count. As a BLP, it's so poorly verified that it should be sent back to draft space, and I do not see how this passes PROF, let alone the GNG. This shouldn't have been moved into mainspace. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. (Coming here after Drmies' ping). I currently don't have the time to look into this in great detail, just marking a few points. The citation record, as observed by David Epstein is more than solid. On the other hand, that seems to be most of what we have for an article, as I find the awards less than impressive. Looks like an "up-and-coming" scientist, but associate profs are not very often found notable yet. If some independent sources would come up on which an article can be based, I'd !vote "keep". --Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha Randykitty, I figured you would say something along those lines--a position between your professional hard data and the requirements of secondary sourcing in the liberal arts way. Thanks for stopping by! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very, very strong h-index metric, which strongly indicates her importance to her field—WP:PROF#C1. Anwegmann (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
29 is not very, very strong. Athel cb (talk) 10:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. Sorry, but the claims very strong h-index are not verifiable. I did the standard test of looking at the top people cited in the areas she lists in her Google Scholar page. The lowest cited area is "System bioinformatics" where she is competitive and 10th on the list. However, in her other areas she is not close to competitive. Her awards are all minor or junior (we really should say not to include them and the Stanford/Elsevier lists). Without significant acknowledgement of her by the wider community it is wP:TOOSOON. A strong start, but not enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm trying one more relist even though the pool of editors wanting to comment on articles on academics in AFD is limited. But I don't see a reconcilation or consensus here, either they meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1 or they don't.

Just as an aside, are articles for academics ever redirected to their institution in case they develop a more substantial profile in years to come? I haven't seen that proposed but thought I'd throw that out as an ATD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if the article on the institution includes a list of its professors, it would only be a list of the bluelinked professors. So if we redirected, the article wouldn't mention the redirect target at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein, especially "Six publications with triple-digit citation counts" a substantial count that is enough to pass NPROF criteria in her field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "Six publications with triple-digit citation counts" is nothing special. The other Portuguese scientist I mentioned has 30. Athel cb (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. Passes #C1 of WP:NPROF to my eyes. I don't usually recommend keeping associate professors (which is the "weak" part) but the sheer number of citations of her work alone is impressive, as is the number of citations that her most-cited papers have received. As I keep saying, passing one criterion is enough to meet the standard. Qflib (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to get this lost AfD back in the system
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwali

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N. Either delete or redirect it to Dehradun Municipal Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant Dabral (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wards may qualify as legally recognized places per GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Elliott Trudeau High School

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

I don't believe this school is notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Searching it online, there are very few articles or things that mention the school. Even the things that mention the school are trivial. Therefore, I think this article fails WP:GNG. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Savchenko (footballer)

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

Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV, and thus WP:GNG. I did several searches in both English and Ukrainian, and only a hockey player came up. This could be a potential WP:TOOSOON situation. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:00, 31 March 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xaviersobased[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMG -- non-notable musician. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- appears they do in fact meet the notability minimums. Barely. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article present SIGCOV.—Alalch E. 01:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also other sources... like this Pitchfork review —Alalch E. 01:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. :https://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/xaviersobased-keep-it-going-xav/

https://www.stereogum.com/2247412/evilgiane-40-feat-nettspend-xaviersobased/music/

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/xaviersobased-nettspend-yhapojj-interview-1234982383/

https://www.thefader.com/2023/09/18/song-you-need-xaviersobased-is-his-own-texture

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/753698-xaviersobased-keep-it-goin-xav-soundcloud-tape-hip-hop-news

https://www.thefader.com/2023/04/24/song-you-need-xaviersobased-and-ayooliis-pop-trunk-is-a-fever-dream

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/xaviersobased-and-kuru-paterson-new-jersey-new-song-listen/

https://ourgenerationmusic.com/exclusive/xaviersobased-interview-ogm/

https://au.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/50-innovators-shaping-rap-next-50-years-49231/xaviersobased-3-49267/

sorry for the wall of links, but for me, this sure meets "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." for me Authenyo (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems I'm incorrect about the notability of this artist. I'll withdraw this nomination.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of tallest buildings in the European Union

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

WP:LISTN. Redundant list. It's basically the same list as List of tallest buildings in Europe minus Russia and Turkey. Randam (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Randam (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources I could find talked about the entirety of Europe and not just the European Union.Esolo5002 (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Dazzlers

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

Non-notable amateur sports team. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NSPORTS. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Bangladesh. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Badminton, and Cricket. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable sports team, very little coverage, none of which would suffice passing guidelines, no suitable WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reloable sources to establish notability. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dope Caesar

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

Non- notable Dj and the news publication are not reliable mostly are blogs, More like an advert, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Subject failed WP:GNG Calyx2s (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable DJ that meets WP:GNG per the coverage received in multiple reliable secondary sources. The sources discussed her and her acts in details. She has huge social media following and on Instagram alone she has over 250 thousand followers and other social media platforms. Yangopano (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are blogs and not reliable, It can't establish notability and social media doesn't guarantee notability.Calyx2s (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: refer to WP:NEWSBLOG, blogs of news organization are acceptable if the writers are professional. Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed by your learning curve. Aintabli (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aintabli me too Tehonk (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- For the above reason by the nominator , the subject Not notable. Couldn't find a credible source on Google search mostly are blogs and this is purely an advertisement.Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIR refers to a opinion and is not an approved policy/guideline Sibtehassanbutt (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Significant, independent and reliable (SIR), thank you for pointing out the wrong link shared. The article source are not WP:RS and also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If not for the content, the three sources are from reliable sources in Nigeria: The Native Mag, NotJustOk and Culture Custodian. (Suggesting: this is just for WP:RS) and doesn't mean opposing/challenging the state of their content for now. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Tehonk (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am skeptical of the nominators statement of SIGCOV. Based in Nigeria sourcing, NotJustOk is a reliable source, and Culture custodian though it was a lyric and few I yet interviews. There are few coverage but fails WP: ANYBIO. Closer to notability though I am seeing a possible case of WP: UPE. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Found these additional sources: Vanguard reliable per WP:NGRS, bellanaija 1 and bellanaija 2, which are generally unreliable per WP:NGRS. Out of the remaining articles, culturecustodian is a reliable source per NGRS, Naija News is borderline and the remaining are not listed, so they could go either way. Royal88888 (talk) 08:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Vanguard publications which is the first source see [[31]] so can't be used and For the 2 and 3rd sources see Generally unreliable sources for Nigeria-related information Calyx2s (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do not think this passes WP:NSINGER or WP:ANYBIO. Aintabli (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Of all the arguments so far, I find that by Royal88888 to be the most convincing, because the musician has been covered with a certain degree of professionalism by sources that have been deemed reliable at WP:NGRS. That coverage often lapses into typical promotional hype but there is some reliable info with which to build an encyclopedic article, though it would be a stub for the time being. The current WP article is pretty high on hype itself, but that junk can be removed through the standard editing process. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some of the sources cited are reliable and their coverage of the subject are fair enough to support the article. Museveni1700 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For some of the sources listed see [[32]] and Generally unreliable sources for Nigeria-related information by so doing the article can't meet WP:THREE.Calyx2s (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources presented in the article and result of a before search performed point to their minimum notability and per the comment by Royal88888. Lagdo22 (talk) 06:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1, 2 and 3rd source listed by him has no byline most likely promotional and the fourth sources is an interview the fifth is nothing to write home about. Calyx2s (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Kiewit

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, when the guidelines were changing. Lots of coverage on the subject, but none of it enough to warrant a WP:GNG pass, with no suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeilinga Strydom

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. A possible redirect seems to be List of South Africa national under-18 rugby union team players. JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be a case of WP:TOOSOON on my part again, loads of coverage on the subject, but none of it really up to the levels of WP:GNG standards. I oppose the redirect suggested by nom as it's a non-notable team, whereas he has played for a couple of notable teams who don't have redirect lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to have any WP:SIGCOV Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Smid

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, when the guidelines were in the process of being changed. There is this but another source or two would still be required, again player hasn't really kicked on to create more coverage, and no suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dameon Venter

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. The closes to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this piece. JTtheOG (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably was a case of WP:TOOSOON on creation, while the guidelines were in process of being changed also. There's lots of coverage, but I don't think any of it reaches WP:GNG levels if I'm honest, and his career hasn't really kicked on, so delete as there's no redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Thain

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG. The closes to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be enough WP:GNG coverage in the large amounts of coverage of the subject to warrant a pass, no suitable redirect either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]