Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 02	April 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013#July – September. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Lahore bombing

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

All the supplied coverage is from the time of the event in July 2013. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

obligatory "it's pakistan hard to search there might be sources we can't find" disclaimer, redirect (or merge the useful content so it's more than a sentence. probably add the group that did it since that's in the article) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013, where it's mentioned PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2013#July – September. Fails WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NEVENT, just a news story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Atari TOS. as an ATD. Another relisting is unlikely to result in more participation so I'm closing this now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EmuTOS

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

Non-notable software. Plenty fo mentions, but mostly asking for support or capsule reviews of OSS projects and therefore not the substantial third-party coverage required to establish notability. The article isn't much more than a release history. Mikeblas (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In worst case, Atari TOS may be a suitable target for merge/redirect. Passing mentions in few RS are sufficient for this purpose, eg. [1] (Mac & i/heise.de; article about retrogaming on Mac), [2], [3] (The Register). Pavlor (talk) 06:24, 22 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) 17:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification

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

Promotional article about non-notable organization, created by obvious paid editor. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion due to earlier AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC). Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. I would be charitable, but in 2024, everybody knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic Village gang rape

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

All the coverage supplied is from November 2022. No evidence of lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and West Bengal. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NEVENT, just a random crime that was in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Jharkhand mob lynching

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

All the sources are from May 2017 except one other from June 2017. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Islam, and Jharkhand. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NEVENT. I'd be open to a merge to Violence against Muslims in independent India#Major incidents, but searching for sources on this turns up numerous incidents and this one doesn't seem to have the coverage to warrant a merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per fails to meet WP:EVENT --Artene50 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Yong-man

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. I can only find trivial mentions of him. Here is one in a newspaper. I don't think this person meets the GNG because the coverage of him is not significant. 2601:200:C100:D20:7932:C5E2:D4D9:6A39 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:GNG, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. I would vote keep here if he had 20+ caps. The fact that there is coverage of him, even if it isn't significant, given the context of the subject, makes this far from open and shut in my view. Anwegmann (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:SIGCOV as others various North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Yong-jin

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:GNG, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of GNG and his only weak claim to fame is playing 10 minutes of one match Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Song-duk

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:GNG, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Gang-song

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:GNG, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:SIGCOV as others various North Korean players. Svartner (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chon Kwon

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:GNG, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wi Jong-sim

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does fail WP:GNG, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft or User space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Valdez

AfDs for this article:

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

Almost no reliable sourcing on the page (mostly just discogs.com). Very little sourcing on this individual appears to be available. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I believe the previous AfD involved a different person by the same name. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, that was someone in indie filmmaking and this Shane Valdez is a punk musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and WP:MUSICBIO. I was unable to find any additional news about this person. Maxcreator (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looks like an attempted self-promotion to drum up new business for a very non-notable music career. He has been a temporary or short-term member of a long series of local bands, only one of which is semi-notable enough to have a WP article (Plankeye, and even they are iffy), and filled in the gaps by working as a road tech and amateur photographer. This has generated some basic credits at directory services, which make up most of the article's attempted citations, but he's never been anywhere close to notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - this theoretically could pass WP:MUSICBIO based on allegations that he marketed "Vans shoes and the now defunct company Rimshot Drumsticks," and with the band "Bonesaw completed an eight-country European tour...." However, better sources must be found per WP:BLP. Right now, it needs to be blown up and many fixes made. Can it be userfied? Bearian (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of self-promotion and meets WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Javier Luis Calmell del Solar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regionalist National Party of the Centre

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

This topic lacks notability, as there appears to be a nearly complete lack of sources for this party's existence, and no sources for activities, dates, policy, or anything else. Ships&Space (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Peru. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Javier Luis Calmell del Solar. The party was founded by a member of the Peruvian parliament - does not appear to have any separate notability. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gio Magaña-Rivera

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

After 7 games in 2 years on the semi-professional level, Magaña-Rivera played 2 games (99 minutes) in the USL League One four years ago. I believe there is not enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sources in the article are exclusively primary, as is this one telling us that he became a high school soccer coach. I found a news story about him signing, which can't be accessed by me in Europe, but either way I don't see being signed as significant enough to warrant an encyclopedic biography. Geschichte (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG wholly. Anwegmann (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cakka Nuraga

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

Does not appear to meet the GNG, with relatively light sourcing mostly focusing on The Finest Tree. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Streaming sites are what i find, this appears PROMO. The sourcing used in the article now isn't the best Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being on YouTube isn't automatic notability. If someone can find and insert better sources, it would be a HEY keep. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article was started in 2013 by a very low edit short duration editor, and just this month edited by an editor using the name of the article. I would have voted delete, but the edit history doesnt help - as the entity/subject still exists - Bearian suggestion of better sources, should get someone enthusiastic to check - preferably not by an editor with a user name same as the subject JarrahTree 05:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Nizigiyimana

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

Nizigiyimana never played a single match in the USL League One. Short college career. Don't see this having any chance of having any independent significant coverage. There is one personal story on a local radio station, which isn't enough to grant notability through any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Tanzania, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT are not met. The sources in the article are not independent, nor is an interview with the team's local paper. Searching online I could only find other similar sources and databases of sports stats (though databases wouldn't show notability either way, the stats in these databases match Geschichte's career description above). - Aoidh (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevan Moezzi

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

WP:BLP of a comedian, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for comedians. As always, comedians are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about them -- but this is referenced predominantly to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as YouTube videos and event calendar listings.
And of the just three footnotes that represent any sort of media coverage, two of them come from university student newspapers, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing were better but can't carry passage of GNG all by themselves. Only one hit out of 11 represents a journalist writing about him in a real media outlet of record, and that isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rotten Tomatoes has a bare bio, so there just isn't much of anything. His highest hits are a Reddit thread and a Getty Image link. This [4] is but a photo. I don't see any sourcing for this fellow. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - again, YouTube followers are not a measure of notability. Virtually no presence on other social media: few followers on Insta; 14 connections on LinkedIn. One Reddit thread and a Getty photo do not constitute significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Lotus Bank. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kafilat Araoye

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

An article about the CEO of a bank which doesn't prove notability. It's more of inherent and not a direct entry to Wikipedia. It was proposed for deletion but was deproded for redirect /merge. When it has been redirected, another editor reverted it with reasons whatsoever. It s more to civility and consensus if it's discussed. For now, it down meets GNG, but per WP:ATD, redirect to Lotus Bank SafariScribe (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Lists of people, Finance, Business, and Nigeria. SafariScribe (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lotus Bank: @SafariScribe: Thank you for bringing it here, I was going to do the same later today, it's great you already did. This fails WP:GNG and there's nothing more to it and per WP:ATD, it better be a redirect to Lotus Bank for now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Can't find reliable enough independent sources on the subject.

Bradelykooper (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Cox (soccer)

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

Soccer player with a comprehensible fail of WP:SPORTCRIT. Played 23 minutes for Charleston Battery. He went to college after that, and his college career didn't pan out, only featuring in three games in 2023. I did find two news articles about him signing in the first place, but that is not a significant enough event to warrant an encyclopedic article. Geschichte (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Anwegmann (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Karizi

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

I couldn't find sources to show he meets WP:MUSICBIO / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Afghanistan, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 19:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked through some articles and books. There's an article from what looks like a predatory academic journal where he's mentioned as "renowned" in passing, and a self-published book which calls him a "popular Afghan folk singer". "Representations of exile in Afghan oral poetry and songs" (Belgheis Alavi Jafari and Liza Schuster, 2019) seems reliable, and find him important enough to use an example, but he's only mentioned as a songwriter belonging to the Afghan diaspora, and quoted once. An article in the Swedish newspaper sv:Tranås-Posten calls him a "major" artist, but only in passing. I wouldn't be surprised if he's in many ways far more notable than some of the people we explicitly want articles about, but I haven't found any sources which can actually be used to build an article. /Julle (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not verified, haven't found sources to prove that GNG is satisfied. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. No actual rationale provided beyond "this article is outdated", which is not valid and this nomination is disruptive. (non-admin closure)‎ λ NegativeMP1 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog)

AfDs for this article:

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

Welp,looks this this article is outdated. Veyleagggjj (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:OUTDATED is not a valid reason to delete an entire article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) - being "outdated" isn't a valid deletion rationale. Unless you've got a different, valid reason, this will just end up closed without action. Sergecross73 msg me 18:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. No trace of a valid deletion reason, and the nomination was Veyleagggjj's second edit ever. Geschichte (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their first ever edit, by the way, was to start a GA Review. That attempt should be stopped in its tracks. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that this nomination was ill-conceived - though I see several merge opinions from the past. Geschichte (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Hoskins

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ENT. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unreferenced WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my! This is an easy call for the reasons stated above. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Kirby

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to have played only minor roles as an actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any sources that establish notability under GNG. Her role in one film is not enough for WP:NACTOR and the only other claim would be because of her relationship to Clive Barker which obvs cannot establish notability. Jtrrs0 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any coverage in ProQuest (where I would have expected). From skimming search results in Google, I gather that audiences really rated her portrayal of "Female Cenobite" in Hellraiser. But it's not really adding up to notability per WP:GNG, let along WP:ACTOR or WP:GNG. (Thought of redirecting at WP:ATD...but unsure what the right target would be.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Owoeye Babajide

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

This article doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Multiple searches only bring up loose references with very, very little WP:SIGCOV. Although there is no doubt this person exists and is an academic, there is very little evidence of notability. Anwegmann (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mostly filled with LinkedIn results. News don't bring up anything about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrjmrrr (talk • contribs) 21:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Halloween#Food. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cake

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. All this article does is demonstrate that cakes can be decorated for different events, which is already covered in cake decorating. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Halloween § Food. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there should be an article about Halloween decorations but there is simply no such specific thing as a "Halloween cake". There are cakes – and cookies and donuts and whatever else – that can be decorated with Halloween motifs or colors, but this is far too vague a concept for a coherent article. Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Carrot cakes are sometimes prepared as Halloween cakes [...] sometimes a spice cake, as a chocolate cake,[8] as a pudding cake,[9] and as a cheesecake." That's five different cakes! Clearly there's no coherent topic to this article. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karaoke Circus

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

Broken refs on the page that we're likely WP:ROUTINE newspaper coverage. I'm not seeing anything else which would appear to meet the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any coverage, including under "Ward & White's Karaoke Circus".— Moriwen (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 27 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) 17:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Arts

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing sources which could be offered to show the notability standards are met for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and California. JMWt (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Would be a speedy delete if schools weren't exempt.— Moriwen (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:49, 30 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) 17:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No love for deletion in this discussion. Renaming and refactoring are out of scope for the close. BusterD (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper folding (disambiguation)

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

Not a valid disambiguation page: only one even partial match, plus a bunch of related articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - some pages are related to paper folding in some way, like Mathematics of paper folding, about the mathematics behind paper folding, and Book folding, about industrial paper folding. - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 12:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is true, then the article is not a disambiguation page after all, but instead closer to a WP:SETINDEX. If that be the case, it should be named Paper folding — but that title currently redirects to Origami, as it should. Havradim leaf a message 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It might be arguable whether some of the listed topics belong on the page, but Paper folding, Chinese paper folding, and Mathematics of paper folding all seem like valid reasons to want a disambiguation page.— Moriwen (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you do not understand what a disambiguation page is for. See WP:PARTIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially after the good work cleaning up the hatnotes at Origami. Havradim leaf a message 15:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless as is. BD2412 T 16:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HARMLESS? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to expand my rationale into something along the lines of Master of Hedgehogs' rationale about these being very different aspects of paper folding, but on reflection, I agree that even with this range, this is a broad-concept topic. I am therefore changing my !vote to:
  Move over Paper folding and refactor into a broad-concept article. BD2412 T 19:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 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!} 18:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Goodness, paper folding is an art form in some nations, as well as in hotels and upscale corporate building restrooms. It's nice to have this dab as a kind of index on the various incarnations of paper folding. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are for things named, in this case, "paper folding" and nothing else, certainly not for subjects just associated with it. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 07:25, 27 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) 17:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the dab has several things a person could plausibly expect to find for a search of "paper folding", most obviously Paper toys. Unhelpful to the reader to delete Mach61 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talking point

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

Hey all, I'd like to delete Talking point per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I don't think it makes sense to merge it into anything because 1. there's not much to merge. It has been a measly one-paragraph stub for the past eight years and before that, it had a few unsourced paragraphs [5] that were correctly deleted and aren't worth salvaging. And reason 2, It's a common term that doesn't need to be defined in an encyclopedia. The phrase "talking point" is used in the text of around 800 Wikipedia articles. [6] but it's only linked-to in the text of about 30 articles (I'm not counting the articles that link to it from Template:Rhetoric). An entry on talking points is totally appropriate for a dictionary (like Wiktionary for example [7] but not an encyclopedia. Thoughts? Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Management, Psychology, and Social science. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems very feasible to write an encyclopedic article about talking points, the strategy of creating them and how they are used in politics and society. Here are some book-length treatments that seem like they could be used. In fact the article already goes well beyond a dictionary definition, though it needs some sourcing.--Jfhutson (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Jfhutson, it's a worthwhile article. I disagree with Crunchydillpickle that it's a common term; that might be the case in certain spheres, e.g. news, politics, media, PR, but that doesn't mean it is well-understood by the ordinary person in the street. The reason I am watching the page is because I originally went to WP to get clarity on what the term meant, and even in its current form it helped me. The solution to its being a stub is to expand the article. Masato.harada (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE; see [8]. Although my high school students might not have heard of the term, it is a tertiary vocabulary that only college-educated people would understand - but that's exactly why our core readership will be looking for this term! If it's not improved by closure time, please userfy it to my user space, and I'll fix it. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Stocker

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- notability doesn't reside in listing acting roles, it resides in the quality and depth and volume of media coverage about him and his performances that can be shown to support the article with.
But this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as theatre roles being sourced to the self-published websites of the theatre companies that staged them -- and while there is one footnote that appears to actually be a reliable and WP:GNG-worthy source, one valid piece of media coverage isn't enough all by itself to pass GNG.
There's also a conflict of interest issue here, as the article has been directly edited by the subject himself under his own name -- and while he didn't create the article himself, he began editing it within a few hours of its creation, suggesting that he likely solicited somebody to write it for him as how else would he already know it was there so quickly?
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more than just one piece of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Austria. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If this was a deceased actor, I'd be less concerned than a WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerve Therapy (medical technique)

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

The article at this point and when it was moved back to mainspace only served to promote "Dr. Hemant Jaisingh". None of the 12 sources had a hit for "Nerve Therapy". And the articles that mention "Hemant Jaisingh" are websites created to look like reputable news media. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Uttarakhand. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One source, a forum, unreliable and talks about the doctor. Other source by pib.gov.in is not available and source by wexnermedical.osu.edu talks about research to treat painful diabetic neuropathy and last source from Asra Pain Medicine talks about A Comparison of Various Peripheral Nerve Stimulators Available Currently on the Market. There is no talk about Nerve therapy in any source. Page has no sources on the title to give it due weight. RangersRus (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Val Schier

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

Former mayor of Cairns Region who does not meet point 2 of WP:NPOL and does not appear to meet WP:GNG. As a local elected official, they are not considered inherently notable and the coverage that I'm finding all appears to be fairly routine. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Not enough independent sources with significant coverage to pass the notability criteria.4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely fails WP:NPOL. No inherent notability from being a mayor of a regional city. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, of course this has no place in NPOL and fails GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMH School, Khatangi

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

This India school article has zero references to establish notability. After searching, found no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific school. Article was created on 9 June 2008; a speedy-delete in 2008. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have likewise found no relevant sources, so delete 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 19:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a WP:MILL institution. Unable to find sources for this to meet WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supir Istimewa

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

There is no evidence this film meets WP:NFILM. The only coverage I can find of this film is listings in film catalogs and promotion for the film. EDIT: To clarify a bit here, there are seven sources in this article. After a search I was able to find one more (Varia), although it is only mentioned once. That gives us 8 candidate sources. Of these, two are promotional (brochure, and De Locomotief). Two are film catalogs (Kristanto 2007, Biran 1979) and so do not establish notability, one is a list of an actor's filmography. This leaves two sources, Vara and Kentaja. The Vara article seems to only mention the film in passing but lets assume generously it passes. The last source is... weird ~~(describing a film released 3 years before as a "new film"?) and frankly I wouldn't trust it, especially~~ since it is unverifiable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator has failed to explain how the existing sources in the article do not demonstrate notability -- this is a common pattern with their nominations for Indonesian film articles. Jfire (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast aspersions here. I went over every single source here, in addition to looking at google books, and news. If you have any concerns about any source in particular that you may think is notable, please feel free to raise it, and I will tell you what my opinion on it was. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no reason to dismiss the 2 books quoted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what two books specifically you are referring to here, could you elaborate? Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kristanto 2007, Biran 1979. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I actually looked at Biran 1979, and it only provides tangential coverage of the movie in two spots, both of which are talking about the careers of people who were involved in the other works. I don't have access to Kristanto 2007, but given its similar topical focus, I'm not very confident it will be much better. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the Biran book What and Who: Film Figures in Indonesia, 1926–1978 is a solid source. I also think the nominator is being too hasty in dismissing the Kentjana review (New Film: Supir Istimewa). For one thing, the date isn't three years off — both the film and the review are dated 1954. And more importantly, the nominator's statement "I wouldn't trust it, especially since it is unverifiable" is not backed up by policy. I don't believe that Kentjana has been evaluated before as a reliable source or not, so "I wouldn't trust it" is a personal feeling rather than a rationale. Furthermore, WP:OFFLINE explains why offline sources are just as good as sources that are currently convenient to access online. The editor who added that information to the article apparently had access to a 1954 Indonesian film review, and I have no reason to suspect that editor of inventing the source out of thin air. Toughpigs (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about Kentjana, I screwed up the date there. Will strike that. I was more worried about the lack of catalog number than about the lack of access. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When I get home from Toronto I can see if I still have my scans of the 1950s articles, but when I wrote the article I did have them. Furthermore, Persari distributed its films nationally, and frankly that alone satisfies WP:NFO, point 1 (Delpher may have listings of screenings if Allan wishes to verify, but their coverage is spotty for the 1950s). The fact that Indonesia has not digitized its magazines to the same extent as western nations is not evidence of a lack of notability; it is evidence that any sources available are going to be offline and difficult to verify for anyone without access to Perpusnas or Sinematek Indonesia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the catalog sources: Biran 1979 is a compendium of brief biographies that he compiled for a government project, and is used here for citing biographic data (what the main stars did subsequently). Kristanto 2007 (and Filmindonesia.or.id, which is a digital continuation of the catalogue) is the most recent printed edition of Kristanto's film catalogue, and is used for uncontroversial information that is also supported by primary sources. Neither is used to ascribe notability to the film. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the Kentjana source to Google Drive in a zip file, if anyone wishes to consult it (I also found an excellent image of Netty Herawaty behind the scenes on Lewat Djam Malam, so definitely worth the dive into these old rephotographs). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Chris explanations above. My capacity to access any sources available are going to be offline and difficult to verify for anyone without access to Perpusnas or Sinematek Indonesia is a time thing - due to my access to materials - weekly at the most.JarrahTree 05:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Original nom here, changing my mind per Chris Woodrich's excellent work here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. WP:TROUT me for this one, I am apparently hilariously bad at reading cursive. (non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ermina Zaenah

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

This is a pretty close case here, but having reviewed the sources both here and on Indonesian Wikipedia, I feel there is a case for delete. WP:GNG is failed as only one of the cited sources (iNews.ID) seems to cover her in depth. With respect to WP:NACTOR, I can only find her appearing in three films with billing. Two of them are not notable enough to be covered in eng-wiki~~, and one of them is... weird. (In Supir Istimewa, she is mentioned in the "plot" section as a major role despite not appearing on the billing)~~. This is a pretty close case but I feel it wouldn't hurt to at least open an AfD. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allan, do you speak Indonesian? Have you located and reviewed the offline sources that are already cited in the article (Ardan 2004, Biran 1979, etc.)? Is there some reason to doubt that they are evidence of notability? Your nomination rationale here is better than some of your other Indonesian film nominations, but still doesn't answer these relevant questions. Jfire (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biran 1979 is effectively a directory of people in Indonesian cinema, it can be useful in establishing notability, but not much else. I assumed generously that the Ardan 2004 established a limited notability, but even then, that is two out of the general three we use as a standard test for notability. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:Nactor-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "This is a pretty close case but I feel it wouldn't hurt to at least open an AfD" is in my opinion the wrong way to be going about this. Opening an AfD means that it's possible that a notable article is deleted, just because the people who have expertise in Indonesian cinema don't happen to chime in this week. It definitely "hurts" the encyclopedia to lose articles on notable subjects. I think that is an irresponsible way to treat this process. Toughpigs (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Die, irrelevant Indonesian people articles. (see here) is the spirit of these recent numerous nominations of Indonesia-related articles, I agree with you that this is not the way the Afd process should be approached. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. A pretty strong indicator of her notability is she has a biographical entry in Sinematek Indonesia Association (1979). "Ermina Zaenah". Apa siapa orang film Indonesia, 1926-1978. Yayasan Artis Film : Sinematik Indonesia. p. 167. Sadly it is only available in snippet view, but its clear she is a significant actress in Indonesian cinema based on her having an entry in this reference work on Indonesian cinema.4meter4 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:TROUT nom. Zaenah is still getting coverage today (see this and this, both found with a quick Google search). That's pretty remarkable for an actress whose last film credit was decades ago. Even if these didn't exist, the fact that she starred in several classic Indonesian films and the fact that she was featured in Apa Siapa Orang Film Indonesia is more than enough to tell you that offline coverage should exist. Nom should slow down their AFD nominations and ask around (maybe at WikiProject Film or WikiProject Indonesia) before nominating articles on Indonesian entertainers. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nom has clearly failed to do their due diligence. Her filmography is already cited in the article, and contains significantly more than three films; as I have mentioned elsewhere, the Indonesian film database is a continuation of JB Kristanto's printed catalogue, and is reliable enough to have been cited in featured articles. The fact that few of those films have Wikipedia articles so far is not an indication that they are not notable, but rather that nobody has written them yet. With the paucity of digital references on 1950s Indonesian cinema, and Wikipedia's well known FUTON bias, that shouldn't surprise anyone.

As for the Supir Istimewa billing - E. Zaenah is literally the first name on the advertisement in the article. She wasn't unbilled - she had top billing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I can't read. Thanks for pointing this out. Will strike that. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Wessenberg

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; has neither won a senior-level medal at any international competition, nor has won the U.S. national championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sports. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the sustained and substantial coverage in independent reliable sources needed to meet the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 09:50, 27 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 14:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Port Shepstone#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Port Shepstone Secondary School

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

Cites one dead link, fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. In South Africa, the terms "secondary" and "high" school are often used, the reason I'm bringing this up is because I also came across Port Shepstone High School which I would like nominate for deletion for the same reason as this one but I'm not familiar with multiple noms, I also fail to understand how there can be a high school and a secondary school of the same name at the same town/location. dxneo (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Schools, and South Africa. dxneo (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no view yet on notability, but this school and Port Shepstone High School are indeed two different schools. There is also a Port Shepstone International High School, an Oxford international school (with no Wikipedia page)[9] - note the different address from the other two. The terms secondary and high are not exactly synonymous, and usage varies by location. These schools therefore do not have the same name, they have similar names. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, secondary school was used in the names of formerly segregated Indian South African schools, and often in black or coloured schools. No idea why this is the case, but if it’s a “high school” it’s often a formerly white school, and “secondary school” it’s usually a former Indian, coloured or black school. That’s why you could end up with a “high school” and a “secondary school in the same townPark3r (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was a bit confused. dxneo (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Port Shepstone#Education. The school gets a mention there, and frankly there is nothing more than that mention here. I have spent quite some time looking for secondary sources, but haven't found any. There is a small amount of local news reporting, the usual reporting of student achievments and the like. This is mostly in The Citizen but a couple of others. Nothing in Newspapers.com but that might be because of the locality. Some passing mentions in a couple of books, e.g. an ex student mentioned in [10] but no significant coverage. Also passing mention in a geology research paper, but only because nearby cliffs are intersting. A few other passing mentions in educational research, but only as one location among many schools. There is, sadly, nothing from which to build an article. However, it is a possible search term, and readers searching this term would best be served by a redirect to the Port Shepstone page that mentions the school and the others in the area. That section could be expanded, but a significant expansion (with associated sources) would be required before a spinout would be justified. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district would still do. dxneo (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which page is that? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Agnetha Fältskog discography#Compilation albums. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agnetha Collection

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing any RS which could be considered JMWt (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Sweden. JMWt (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agnetha Fältskog discography#Compilation albums per nomination. Found no coverage myself. Perhaps some exists outside of archives given how famous the artist is, but we can't keep an article on an assumption. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Agnetha Fältskog discography#Compilation albums per QuietHere. No sourced content to merge. Jfire (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. Nothing to find in the news also. ihateneo (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markets.com

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT - lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Sourcing is poor: government databases and Forex websites, much of that trivial coverage such as personnel changes per WP:ORGTRIV. Overly promotional and unencyclopedic. AusLondonder (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, Websites, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interviews, RP pieces and licensing documentation, don't help notability. I don't see anything outside of PR items in my searches. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 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, ✗plicit 14:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news made up of funding, hiring news, PR. scope_creep^Talk 13:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of female United States presidential and vice presidential candidates. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Carpenter Swain

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

Doesn't seem to have attracted widespread coverage to establish notability beyond the single event of entering in the 1964 Democratic presidential primaries. Suggest redirection to List of female United States presidential and vice presidential candidates. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United States of America. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested: I can only find a trivial amount of coverage [11] and [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - she has gone by multiple names over the years, and I have added citations that mention various pairs of names (e.g., "Princess St. Swanee Running Water" also known as "Fay(e) Carpenter Swain). I suspect there is more coverage, but in the interim I have added in some mentions of note in the news. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as Faye T. Carpenter, and I saw numerous hits for her referred to as Fifi Carpenter Swain, and Fifi Swain - mostly in "pre-internet" sources such as Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive. Netherzone (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also known as "Fifi Taft Rockefeller" per the The Cincinnati Post obituary shown below in the Refs. While she clearly does not meet WP:NPOL, I'm beginning to think, with so many short pieces on her in multiple, independent reliable sources (newspapers and books), plus the longer obits and the longer coverage in the Laura Pulfer book, she may actually meet WP:BASIC, even if [[WP:GNG}} is not met. Netherzone (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment that I am intrigued and open to striking my nomination depending on what the extent of sourcing ends up being. Am currently in and out of functioning post surgery however, so can’t look into it myself atm. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while she has never been elected to office, her campaigns have generated news coverage over multiple years and in multiple states in the United States. Some of the later pieces in Ohio have more detailed descriptions of her (see here^[1] and here^[2]), and she has appeared in books about Indiana^[3] and the US presidency.^[4] I will note that she used multiple names over the years which makes it a challenge to sort out when she used which name, but the news articles in the article do clearly link the names. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is also covered in books on people in the Ohio area, with extended coverage here^[5] and here.^[6] DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of female United States presidential and vice presidential candidates per WP:ATD. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. If better sources are ever found this can always be restored and improved upon, but at present there isn't enough here to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV has been met.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of female United States presidential and vice presidential candidates per WP:ATD. The book reference is a start, but even if a subject does meet WP:N, there is no guarantee that the "topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page" --Enos733 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has entire chapters in two books (linked above), and possibly a third book (No Shoes, No Shirt, No Trial by Deidra Hair, though I cannot access that one). I think of that as more than a start. When this is combined with all the news stories mentioning her over the years, this meets WP:BASIC as she is more than a prior candidate for public office. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Fifi Taft Rockefeller, proud of role as 'town character'". The Cincinnati Post. 1997-08-04. pp. 7, 33. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
^ Pulfer, Laura (1997-08-05). "Fifi, beloved street person, dead at 81". The Cincinnati Enquirer. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
^ Carmony, Donald F. (Donald Francis) (1966). Indiana: a self-appraisal. Internet Archive. Bloomington, Indiana University Press. p. 54.
^ Cash, Kevin (1975). Who the hell is William Loeb?. Internet Archive. Manchester, N.H. ; Amoskeag Press. p. 256.
^ Wecker, David (2014). Square pegs : stories about everything and nothing. Internet Archive. [Place of publication not identified] : BrandFlick. pp. 233–236. ISBN 978-0-615-94752-5.
^ Pulfer, Laura (1998). I beg to differ : politically incorrect, proudly Midwestern, potentially funny. Internet Archive. Wilmington, Ohio : Orange Frazer Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-1-882203-24-6.

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Da Vincis

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

Not yet notable per WP:BAND. The only secondary coverage I can find of them in reliable sources is the Under The Radar album review already cited here, and this album review in the Jackson Free Press. They were the local warmup band for two notable bands in their home town in 2009, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. I can find no evidence of national rotation, or significant awards. Created by SPAs and speedy deleted three times 2008-10, but for some reason not the fourth SPA in 2010. Wikishovel (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Mississippi. Wikishovel (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GARAGEBAND and some obvious COI, combined with being unable to find any mention online. BrigadierG (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Wikishovel's points above re notability on a national scale, although band was clearly more than a WP GARAGEBAND. Not sure about COI w/out specificity. I have been doing research to update the page, but while the arc of the band progressed and a second CD/LP was released, part of page update was to note that the band is no longer active. I have not completed research, but high value citations thus far have been challenging. Part of what what was notable about the band was their age when they began. I looked at the wikipedia page for "List of Musicians from Mississippi" and wonder if there is some other way to categorize this band such that they are attached to Mississippi list? As example, I saw a band called Beanland on the list that seems to have a similar arc to that of The Da Vincis.

Updating the page has not been a priority, however, i wonder if there is any value to me attempting a page update over the next week (or not if I can't find better sources) and then revisit/re-discuss the deletion? I want to neither keep the page unnecessarily nor delete it unnecessarily. As a Wikipedia novice, I don't want to waste my time (or anyone else's) if deletion is a fait accompli. Gradock (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gradock hey, great You came! Don't be discouraged! The AfD is not a court martial or anything like that, and if you read WP:ATD You'll see that more often than not articles listed here get shored up to the point where they are kept. Don't be discouraged. If you have good references and links that show the band is notable, by all means include them, provide them, show them! We are all open minds here and working on this neverending project to collect all human knowledge. It's good that you're here. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 21:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the above. You have my word that if you're able to uncover good quality sources such as in-depth magazine coverage I'm not aware of, I will change my vote. Contributing positive material to Wikipedia should always be welcomed, don't take my delete vote as a vote against the band or any authors of the page. BrigadierG (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx @brigadierG @ouro @wikishovel. Any thoughts on the "List of Musicians from Mississippi" question. Or more specifically, is there some other place/category within wikipedia where those interested in the band might be better served? Gradock (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. If it's not relevant for an article, it's not allowed to be included in those lists. Please see WP:CSC, WP:GARAGEBAND, WP:NOTDIRECTORY BrigadierG (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Making an effort: I found this, the album See You Tonight is reviewed near the top. I know it's next to nothing but maybe a start. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one, this time from the Jackson Free Press. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok for me to simply revise the page - fairly major edits, then allow the deletion discussion to continue? Or do it in the sandbox or something? what is the easiest way for proposed edits to be digested by the group? Gradock (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Gradock: just edit the article, then come back here to say that you've done it and let the discussion roll on. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok, gonna let'er rip. Gradock (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see current data that demonstrates both current global listenership, and historical listenership through soundcharts.com by signing up for their fremium subscription. However, greater historical detail requires a paid subscription. So the validation is there, but behind a login at minimum. Not a very friendly (if even acceptable) citiation. One problem in research is that band has been inactive since 2017 and was most active 2009-2012, so some of original citations have gone stale. Especially related to airplay and are not searchable in Wayback Machine. Gradock (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@brigadierG @ouro @wikishovel et al, i have done an extensive re-work and in the process got a depracated source flag. not sure which one that is but suspect #12/Last.fm perhaps becuase it is some sort of social media site. If so, I can replace with a better reference i think. still don't know if it meets (or now after research how indie bands ever meet) whatever the wikipedia notability bar is. That said, if as revised, it does not pass muster then delete it. Lastly, if this is deleted, is it archived somewhere in the event additional info could resurrect it? More notable than a garage band less notable than the Rolling Stones. Gradock (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Gradock: Oh, the article looks much cooler now. I don't know whether it will pass but it's great you added sourcing. The prose is also nice, looks balanced. Fingers crossed. I'm definiely in favour of keeping it. Ps. If you want the ping to work, You need to use double square parentheses [[ and ]] and link the user name exactly as it is used, including capitalisation, e. g. for me it would be @[[User:Ouro]]. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:wikishovel @User:BrigadierG @Ouro I did not know Bandcamp was a user generated product and considered an unreliable source. That said, it was used primarily to validate Band existence/release dates. Also found the quote by noteable journalist Sandra Zettpunkt on one of the BandCamp pages, which would not have been posted by anyone associated with the band. I am not a music person, so Bandcamp is just another source for me. The fact that there is actual music you can sample on the site would seem to balance some of the "reliablity" issues. I am a new wikipedia editor and discoverd the Da Vincis page whilst building another page. I am undertaking the updating/revisions more to sharpen my chops/Learn than any other reason. Given the my time/energy/effort expended, I have a greater appreciation for the struggles of indie bands like The Da Vincis in frankly just surviving, in good faith I come back to @wikishovel's "Not yet notable per WP:BAND" criteria. Delete. Gradock (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, I respect all the effort you put in to improving this article. I too am still a delete vote, but I hope you stick around and put this much effort into other articles on this website as well BrigadierG (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gradock, You're one tough cookie. You worked on the article and still concede that it would not survive. Respect. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This seems to be a classical marginal case. There is some coverage, including AllMusic, but I don't know if the totality counts as significant. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm along alone with delete. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 11:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Coverage in non-RS, trivial coverage otherwise. I can only find the usual list of streaming sites for them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:BAND. The case here is lack of SIGCOV as the article is filled with non reliable sources and primary self pubs. Not much for a music group with few musicals. There is no notable member to say redirect! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎ speedy keep. Subject has indeed been confirmed elected to the Tasmanian Parliament. Canley (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Beswick

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

This individual is not being projected as being elected yet, and the claim that she is "expected to be elected" is unsourced. Article made prematurely. It is entirely possible that Beswick will not be elected – article is speculative and has misinformation. J2m5 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess your going to go from article to article on the projective MPs, as literally every single one features various parts stating they have already been elected and have begun their duties. This one is more conservative and states that she (or possibly redgrave) is projected to be elected. This is visible and has accurate information in the affirmative on the blog of Antony Green, ABC projection, and would you believe it, even the Tasmanian electoral commission. There is no reason to delete it, and I think if anything it sounds politically motivated rather than being based on the amount of sources. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All other articles (that I know of) are of persons who are projected as being elected without any doubt by reliable sources such as the ABC, eg Tabatha Badger, Rob Fairs, etc. It is not certain that Beswick is being elected. If Redgrave gets elected and she doesn't, this article has given everyone misinformation that she is a member of parliament. Read WP:POLITICIAN, WP:N, WP:OR and refrain from making spurious accusations of political motivation. ABC has not projected Beswick as a member of parliament as of 4 April, and the TEC definitely has not. It is not the role of editors to speculate on what may happen in the future – that is WP:OR. It is to summarise existing sources, none of which currently definitively suggest Beswick is a member of parliament. In contrast, now that the ABC has projected Andrew Jenner as being elected, which is a reliable source, now he passes WP:N/WP:POLITICIAN and an article can be made for him. J2m5 (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we will just be remaking it in a week either way. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Sigh. She's not yet notable per our regulations and is very likely to become notable per our regulations in the time it takes this AfD to run. If she somehow doesn't, though, she won't be notable. So just draftify unless something changes within the week. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I agree, it's annoying but she's not currently notable until she gets elected. If she's likely to be elected, then there should be no problem drafting this for now and moving it back to mainspace if she is indeed elected. GraziePrego (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and close ASAP per WP:SNOW and WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as promotional tool by political candidates which is essentially what the article is currently doing by declaring someone the presumptive elected candidate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and currently this person fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposer: ABC has projected Miriam Beswick as being elected, so the article no longer requires being moved to draftspace. This can in future be avoided by users such as DeadlyRampage26 refraining from making politician articles until reliable sources actually project them as being elected. J2m5 (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Projections are not wins. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, editors in the past generally have made Wikipedia articles before politicians are declared elected by a commission or are formally sworn in. I don't love the practice, but I'm not here to start a paradigm shift, I just wanted to move to draftspace an article for a person who was (at the time) not even being officially projected to get elected by any reliable outlet. J2m5 (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The subject has now been elected to the Tasmanian parliament. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchpad LA

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

Contested PROD, appears to fail WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. IgelRM (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Going through the sources on the page:

Source analysis
Source	Analysis	Conclusion
#1	not significant ("Suster also founded LaunchPad LA", end coverage).	✗
#2	dead link, not on the wayback machine.	✗
#3	note that this is a blog hosted by the NYT, not the NYT proper. Not reliable.	✗
#4	blog on medium dot com. Not reliable.	✗
#5	forbes contributor, not reliable.	✗
#6	own website, not independent.	✗
#7	A real source! But a local one.	~
#8	the noticeboard doesn't have a clear consensus on pando as a source. Dubious.	~
#9	techcrunch "may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability".	✗
#10	another forbes contributor.	✗
#11	not significant ("went on [...] to become a partner at a tech accelerator, Launchpad LA", end coverage).	✗
#12	not independent ("customer stories" section)	✗
#13	another real but local source.	~
#14	plausibly real, local.	~
#15	blog and not independent.	✗
#16	business insider syndicated content "should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher." this is syndicated from a medium blog. not reliable.	✗
#17	local and not significant ("I applied to LaunchpadLA").	✗
#18	business insider is dubiously reliable, and it's a passing mention anyway ("Incubated at the SoCal tech accelerator Launchpad LA")	✗
#19	Passing mention ("which was part of incubator Launchpad LA") in a dubiously reliable source.	✗
#20	Local source again, focused on the company they funded.	✗
#21	Not actually mentioned in this source.	✗
#22	passing mention ("came out of the accelerator program LaunchpadLA").	✗
#23	Not significant, reliable, or independent (podcast by someone whose company was funded)	✗

Overall: some local coverage. One source of uncertain reliability. Nothing else that contributes to notability. Doesn't qualify for WP:NCORP.— Moriwen (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MoriwenI am not sure why you considered local sources 7, 13 and 14 not reliable. LA Business Journal is a respectable publication. It's like saying LA Times or NY Times are not reliable. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree they're reliable sources! But per WP:AUD, coverage in reliable local sources doesn't establish notability.— Moriwen (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualifying a local source in Los Angeles or New York is different from applying the same in Idaho Falls or Merrillville. We appear to have two reliable sources here (7 and 13 are the same publisher). ~Kvng (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 is ok, but is one source about Los Angeles startup funding significant coverage? Techzulu doesn't appear like mainstream newspaper and is primarily a list of "graduates". Like I said in my PROD, we already have articles on Mark Suster and Adam Lilling.

IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Per the evaluation above sources 7, 13 and 14 are reliable sources. LA Business Journal is a notable publication. Z3r0h3r000 (talk) 07:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in LA Business Journal and TechZulu. Additional coverage in other outlets. ~Kvng (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article intends to be a history of "incubator program", TechZulu would be a significant source if it were a list of companies funded by the program. The LA Business articles, describing the program among others, aren't sufficient significant coverage for WP:NCORP. IgelRM (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear from your previous statements that you find these sources insufficient. I disagree. Please stop the WP:BLUDGEONING. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you find my reply partially redundant but the burden is generally on the nominator to respond. I also found an article from Pando Daily and one that looks independent from Techcrunch. IgelRM (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get the idea that you have a burden to respond? ~Kvng (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Articles all mention this fund in passing. I'd put a brief mention in the articles for each founder and move on. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 26 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analog-to-digital timeline

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

This will eventually be an unwieldy list of all digital devices (cameras, phones, scales, light bulbs...) Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The last invention listed at the end is from 2005. Also what is a analog or digital light bulb? Dream Focus 20:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lightbulb whose brightness varies with current is clearly analogue. Digital? Perhaps something like this [13] Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will be a list of thousands of digital devices. Do you think that they stopped making digital devices in 2005? — Sean Brunnock (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was made in January 2009, with so few edits they all fit on one history tab listing. I don't think thousands of devices will be added, nor would that make any sense at all. It list the first of each thing, not every single device there ever was. Dream Focus 22:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a confused mess of OR without anything remotely resembling a clear topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a list article, and WP:LISTN states: Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I can find no such sources that describe a timeline, as envisaged here, about everything analogue to digital. I can find evidence in specific domains, such as the evolution of music recording, but even there, the information is not generally presented as a standalone timeline without any context. I think this list is misconceived. If we consider the reader, the question is what information might they want or need to know, and how would we best provide that information? An incomplete context free list is not going to help an information need. Instead an article on this wide ranging subject should be written in prose, and may then contain relevant timelines. For instance, would Comparison of analog and digital recording benefit from a timeline? Such a timeline is typically presented as a diagram in sources, rather than as a list. Finally I am unconvinced by the argument above that the page will not become unwieldy simply because no one has edited it. Sure, the lack of interest in touching this page might mean it remains short, but it also means it is very incomplete, and what it contains is editor selected, and thus WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are a lot of timeline articles just like this one. Category:Timelines by topic Dream Focus 01:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on TNT grounds. I do think a good timeline article could possibly be written, but this isn't it, and I'm not sure if anything could be salvaged. Currently it's just a list of digital devices. For it to be a timeline of the transition from analogue to digital, there must have been an established analogue thing before the invention of a digital equivalent. This makes perfect sense in some fields (music recordings) but it's absolute nonsense in numerical calculation because Babbage's difference engine didn't replace an analogue equivalent. Yes, there were and are analogue computing devices, but they never did the same job, they never occupied the same ecological niche, and in any case, the article doesn't mention them. Nor does it make any sense to mention the Jacquard loom as there was never an analogue loom because weaving is fundamentally a there-or-not-there process. Book-keeping was always a digital process too; accounts were never analogue. We must be careful not to confuse analogue-to-digital with manual-to-automated. The same applies to most of the stuff about player-pianos. I am prepared to strike my delete if someone is able to do a massive clean-up and reorganisation, but the list in its current form is an ill-defined mess that I feel needs a totally fresh start. Elemimele (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is best not to delete it but significantly modify before moving to the article space again. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tech-history fancruft. This is like a wiki version of those old Ray Kurzweil plots of random things thrown together onto a timeline because they were all "evolutionary innovations" somehow. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Messy and unclear. I read it and I am not sure what this even supposed to be - the content seems to contradict the lead, or perhaps requires expert knowledge. Fails NLIST, INDISCRIMNATE, etc.

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural keep‎. Title is no longer an article, since it was moved by the nom. Should be nominated at RfD instead. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayavaram, Krishna district

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

The title is incorrect and does not match the content. The page is moved to Rayavaram (Markapur mandal). Hence the old page should be deleted. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been at this title for a long time, so it is better to leave the redirect in place — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celerant Technology

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to reprints of press releases and partnership announcements. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, United States of America, and New York. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly the sort of article that WP:NCORP is meant to prevent. Jfire (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional and without reliable sources--I didn't find anything better. Article creator tried to move the article back to draft and remove the AfD tag--I've reverted. --Finngall ^talk 16:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly promotional in nature from the sources provided. None are reliable. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 13:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article appears to be promotional in nature and lacks citations from credible sources.Dejaqo (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muneer Alshowkan

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

Alshowkan doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:NACADEMIC criteria, having reached Assistant Professor before leaving for industry. His current post (from the references) is "postdoctoral scholar". His important work seems to have been done as part of a team at Oak Ridge. Considering WP:BIO, there are some prizes ('top 100' listing in an industry magazine), but this doesn't seem sufficiently notable. My searches don't find more to add to the notability argument (including looking at Scopus and Google Scholar listings, which are linked). Klbrain (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Connecticut, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The job titles are largely irrelevant, and ORNL is a government research lab, not "industry". But for someone who works there, the relevant criteria are still most of the same ones under WP:PROF, with maybe #C5 out of reach but the rest still relevant. His citation record [14] is not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, and we have no evidence of any of the other criteria (such as being elected as a fellow of a major research society). I don't think the R&D World magazine listicle [15] counts towards WP:GNG or anything else, because it is not a significant national-level honor (merely the topic one of 100 spammy short articles per year in a certain magazine) and the article does not even mention Alshowkan. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. With an h-factor of 12 and 61 publications he is not even close to WP:PROF. I also have some concerns about the award, since it is not an independent sources -- if it is real then there will be one. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009#July – September. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Channu school house bombing

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

All the supplied sources are from July 2009. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Schools, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I always vote (since we seem to be going through every attack in Pakistan), selective merge/redirect to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009#July – September where it is mentioned, without prejudice to recreation if later sources do turn out to exist - given the media landscape in Pakistan and the language barrier, a full assessment is difficult. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've found one source from 2011, but that's it. There's possibly more lasting coverage in Urdu. Skyshiftertalk 10:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2009#July – September per nom and PARAKANYAA. Just a news story. The 2011 source is just a new development, not secondary analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Problematic smartphone use. I'm not sure that this is the most appropriate Merge/Redirect target but it's the option that seems to carry the most opinions for it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IPad kid

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

Not notable enough for its own article, considering we have many articles on the broader subject. Worth merging into a section in another article, maybe Problematic smartphone use § Prevalence. Dan • ✉ 13:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is moreorless a term describing an event that is happening during a certain point in history. there are many notable sources just about describing the details the impact of what is behimd the term. this is lookijg towqrds being a very prevelant thing that prevails in gen alpha kids. in my opinion, keep for now and let the article be expanded from the sources provided. another suggestion i have is to expand if with sources using the term "brainrot", a new word meaning content presumably of poor value and supposedly could hinder development of adolescent minds

right now the article is very bare and it would benefjr greatly from an expanaion, which i believe contributed greatly to the inititiation of the afd discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.162.206 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Technology. Owen× ☎ 16:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While this is more of a dictionary definition, it turns out that this term, whih was stated by sources as coming from TikTok, has been mentioned, but search turns article just using the term without anything indepth. The second sentence may be worth of copy pasted to Problematic smartphone use#Prevalence or related. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 17:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kinopiko ^talk 18:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism with insufficient notability and sourcing to amount to anything more than a slang dictionary entry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* This could probably be merged to the Generation Alpha article (if reliable sources are describing Generation Alpha as 'iPad kids' that is). I see that it's already in there at Generation Alpha#iPad Kids, so delete this standalone article. Some1 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Problematic smartphone use. No need to delete it - some content may be usable. But the case stand-alone notability for the term seems weak. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Problematic smartphone use: WP:NOTDICT but there could be some usable content here. She was ^afairy 07:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are iPads "smartphones" though? Some1 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to drafts: the topic I believe is notable, but in this state it is not fit for mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.162.206 (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to either Generation Z#Children and parenthood or to Generation Alpha I've stricken my !vote above after googling and reading some articles about "iPad kids".
https://wired.me/culture/ipad-kids/ "The term “iPad kids” first entered the Gen Z lexicon thanks to TikTok, with the hashtag racking up over 525 million views on the platform. What began as a harmless social observation on social media quickly spiraled into a new outlet for Gen Z to troll millennials. And this time they are poking holes in the millennial parenting model, accusing them of raising “bizarre and terribly behaved” kids that go ballistic when their iPads are nowhere in sight."

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ipad-kid "The term was popularized on TikTok in January 2021 and became increasingly prevalent over the course of the following years as a way to make fun of Gen Alpha."

https://www.today.com/parents/family/ipad-kids-rcna142059 "Gen Z has a lot to say about parents today allowing "excessive" screen time for their children, who Gen Z condescendingly refers to as "iPad kids." These screen-loving children are a part of Gen Alpha, the subsection of people who were born from 2010 — the year Apple iPads were first available to the public — until today. As a result of staring at screens, Gen Alpha's "iPad kids" have developed unwanted, unhealthy and downright strange behavior, say Gen Z critics (born between the late 1990s and 2010), who have been posting their thoughts about the younger generation on TikTok."

https://seattlespectator.com/2022/10/26/ipad-kids-are-shaping-the-future-of-education/ "Some in Generation Z have frowned upon the idea of raising their own children as “iPad kids” after witnessing recent hyper fixation with technology."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2024/01/09/kids-nice-restaurant-ipad/72161794007/ "Side parts and skinny jeans aren't the only things Gen Z is criticizing about Millennials. The younger generation has been using TikTok to address the amount of screen time Millennials allow their children to have and their lack of firm parenting. Gen Alpha and 'iPad parenting': Davis' video isn't the first to address the issues of children misbehaving in public. The video is going viral at a time where discourse over raising "iPad kids" is strong on TikTok."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-gen-z-wont-be-raising-ipad-kids "The same study also showed the different reactions of parents to a tablet versus mobile devices with 65 percent of parents saying it was acceptable for a child to have their tablet computer before the age of 12—hence Gen Alpha’s “iPad kid” label... For Gen Z who will soon take the reins of parenthood, shifting away from the iPad trope is the goal—especially in light of the overwhelming negative evidence."

https://www.vice.com/en/article/93k8kv/ipad-kids-gen-alpha-childhood-development "Ryan Lowe is a child and adolescent psychotherapist and spokesperson for the Association of Child Psychotherapists. When she watched the “iPad kid” call-out videos, she felt the stirrings of hope “that perhaps Gen Z will be better equipped to parent in the digital age”."

https://www.businessinsider.com/ipad-kids-tiktokers-worried-gen-z-millennials-gen-alpha-2023-11 "Gen Z is getting nervous about parenting. Specifically, they're worried about raising a generation of iPad kids."

https://www.glamour.com/story/people-without-children-complaining-about-ipad-kids "“Ipad kids” as a meme has been ongoing, but the concept has taken on new life in recent months, likely because of a viral TikTok by creator Gabe Escobar. Escobar, a 21-year-old actor, got 20 million views on his video, in which he tells millennials that their kids are “bizarre and terribly behaved.”... He concludes: “Gen Z isn’t allowed to raise iPad kids.”"

https://www.businessinsider.com/millennial-parents-praised-raising-emotionally-intelligent-gen-alphas-2023-12 "Gen Alphas are nicknamed "iPad kids" because of the amount of time they spend staring at screens."

https://www.indiatoday.in/lifestyle/story/meet-gen-alpha-parents-and-teachers-reveal-how-they-are-coping-with-the-ipad-kids-2487469-2024-01-14 "Meet Gen Alpha: Parents and teachers reveal how they are coping with the iPad kids"

https://www.businessinsider.com/gen-alpha-explained-technology-views-mental-health-2023-10 "Gen Alphas have grown up surrounded by technology, and they are considered to be the most "digitally native" generation yet, Insider Intelligence reported. Less flatteringly, they're also sometimes referred to as "iPad kids" by older generations because of the amount of time they spend staring at screens." Some1 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to either Generation Alpha or Problematic smartphone use. The article doesn’t seem to be able to stand on its own, but the term seems relevant enough to have the article be merged and the term turned into a redirect. GrayStorm^{(Talk|Contributions)} 22:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yep YourLocalZenith talk 01:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus to merge, but to what?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 CookieMonster 13:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a merge target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article should be redirected to Gen Z slang? I think the article is notable enough but it needs improvement, merging is also a good option. 115.70.87.192 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support redirecting iPad kid to Generation Z slang. Some1 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Problematic smartphone use: per nom - Master of Hedgehogs ^(converse) ^{(hate that hedgehog!)} 12:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There was no support for redirecting to any other article. ✗plicit 01:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPDC-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the station served a sizable portion of the Christian community and appeared in multiple Christian publications. Karl Twist (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the refs in the article are SIGCOV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. I ask please that if it comes to the stage where this may be deleted, we could look at the alternative of redirecting it to Channel 25 low-power TV stations in the United States or create another page such as Channel 25 low-power TV stations in California or similar, thus preserving the history. I've also noticed that KSPK-LD, KBRO-LD and KJCS-LD are up for Deletion Nomination. Could we please look at doing similar for those. Perhaps redirect to Channel 25 low-power TV stations in the United States or create Low-power TV stations in Colorado. It would be a shame as there was work put into them by others and a redirect and merge is always a good alternative consideration. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karl Twist, just offer an opinion to REDIRECT and your opinion will be considered, you do not have to make a plea to the closer. Just voice your argument as a regular discussion participant. And if you want this article or others Merged, you or another editor will need to create the target article yourself. It's not part of a closer's job tasks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Hi Liz, I wasn't actually expecting the closer to do so but I take your point. I was throwing a suggestion out there incase someone had an idea to create a target to redirect to. Karl Twist (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's fair to say that if Sammi Brie can't find any significant coverage for a broadcast station, it probably doesn't exist. (Certainly, among the existing sources, they are either listings, briefer mentions, non-independent, aren't necessarily about the station to start with, or some combination thereof.) I do concur with Karl Twist's suggestion that redirecting to lists are a valid alternative to deletion when available (and have accordingly !voted to that effect in most of the applicable recent AfDs), but our lists of low-power stations television stations tend to only include currently-licensed stations, so there's no such alternative for KPDC. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Hi, well possibly a consideration to re-direct to Channel 25 low-power TV stations in the United States could be floated. I can see merit in that. And a small caption beside it would be sufficient maybe. Karl Twist (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A discussion of possible redirect targets would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 10:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Persecution of Ahmadis#2014. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Gujranwala attacks

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

3 of the sources are actually dated from before this event. The remaining sources are all from the time of event. No lasting impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively Merge/redirect to Persecution of Ahmadis#2014, where this incident is mentioned, though without a link to the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the incident section to Persecution of Ahmadis#2014, no sustained significant coverage, not notable outside of the larger topic. Good find on the merge target. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andris Wasono

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

Generally lack of notability and fails criteria set on WP:BASIC. Also, the article created by sock known for making non-notable BPL. Proposed for PROD earlier but blocked by IP editor (possibly sock) Ckfasdf (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sources exist to establish notability in my opinion (a web search produces more sources than are cited in the article). Redtree21 (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of sources found on web search primarily originate from the bengkalis.go.id domain, where he holds an official position, suggesting they shouldn't be considered for notability since those sources can be considered self-published. And, as per WP:NPOL, local official/political figures could be regarded as notable if they receive significant press coverage. I assume that "significant" press coverage implies coverage on at least a national level, whereas he only garners attention from local media. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping @Redtree21:. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you want a Keep vote to be taken seriously, bring the reliable sources you found into this discussion so they can be evaluated, don't just do a web search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't really been able to find anything to establish notability either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, I don't see any consensus here for any particular outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing applied or found demonstrates WP:Reliable sources independent of the subject. Doesn't meet GNG or ANYBIO. I'm not seeing any assertion this subject is more than an ordinary civil servant. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG - Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSFG-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Alabama#LPTV stations: it is listed there, and an {{R to list entry}} seems a sufficiently-logical alternative to deletion here. (WSFG-LD carries enough networks that merely redirecting to the list of Daystar Television Network stations — that is the main-channel affiliation — doesn't seem ideal, even if it is listed there too.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in that it provided significant info for the Christian community. I maybe wouldn't be so strongly opposed to a redirect if key info about it would be retained in the redirect target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Twist (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign all comments in a discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 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!} 05:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Matter of Taste (album)

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

Subject fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 07:22, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 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!} 05:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely nothing to find other than download links. ihateneo (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Faith and Fatherland

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

fails general notability guideline. ltb d l (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ltb d l (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 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!} 05:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Mira

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Promotional article from an editor with possible COI. BEFORE does not help. In short, non-notable journalist. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, and Asia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:09, 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!} 05:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hearing professorship with no University. This article without being skeptic doesn't meet GNG, NJOURNALIST and NPROF. No credibility for Wikipedia entry whatsoever. No need of analysing sources (they, if not all appear as vague—i can even see cited Wikipedia). Jam-packed promo! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:PROF. I see no evidence his biography is notable and has been the subject of significant coverage by independent sources. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Florida X Division Championship

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

No notable pro wrestling title. A regional title active for a few years. Lack of third party reliable sources focusing on the title besides a few WP:ROUTINE results. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 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!} 05:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Street dog#India. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indie dog of India

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

Quite obviously fails WP:GNG. Unencyclopedic, essay-like article. Do we really need a Wikipedia article on stray dogs in India? 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 05:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 05:07, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually disagree with the nominator in that I think, depending on the sources available, the amount of/culture surrounding stray dogs in India could possibly be an encyclopedic topic. But wow this is not it. None of this is save-able, and if this topic does prove to be notable, the title is completely wrong and absolutely none of this content would be useful for it, so it would amount to a TNT anyway. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I disagree with the proposal to redirect. There's no useful content here, and this isn't an accepted name for stray dogs as far as I can tell. Nothing is gained by redirecting this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects don't have content... how is that relevant? "Indie dog" does appear to be used to refer to stray dogs in India.[16] – Joe (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indie dog *of India* is a bad title, and there's no worthwhile content to add for a merge-keep reason. If it was just titled "Indie dog" I would agree with redirect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Street dog#India. I agree that there is strong potential for an article on stray/feral dogs in India. Such populations are often very notable from a cultural, historical, and biological point of view; see Street dogs in Bucharest, Street dogs in Moscow, Street dogs in Thailand, Indian pariah dog, Pye-dog, etc. But this version smells strongly of WP:LLM, with a few barely-relevant citation added in, such that it would be easier to start from scratch than edit it into a properly sourced article with an encyclopaedic tone. – Joe (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Joe Roe suggested, the subject is probably notable but this is almost certainly generated by AI/LLM, and is absolute twaddle. Elemimele (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that my reply was a bit harsh as this is a product of a student course. But whoever is providing Wikipedia advice to the students needs to emphasise that they should be using sources to support their text, and that they should write in an encyclopaedic style, not in the style of a LLM/AI generator (if they weren't using one... these are not safe tools to mess around with. If you can write good text, you don't need AI, and if you can't, you can't assess the AI product). I do think, unfortunately, it's a start-over job, so for the moment I recommend redirect. The Street dogs in Thailand article would have been a reasonable model to work with if the editor wishes to create a similar article on Indian feral dogs. Elemimele (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The page has strong potential and the subject is notable but needs to be re-written. The creator of the page can use other pages as guide like Street dogs in Moscow, Street dogs in Thailand, Street dogs in Bucharest. RangersRus (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Granulomatous amoebic encephalitis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sappinia amoebic encephalitis

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

Everything on this page can all fit in Granulomatous amoebic encephalitis so it would simply be best to redirect it and merge. Okmrman (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to granulomatous amoebic encephalitis. This could probably have been a single unopposed merge, no AfD necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarod Cairns

(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) 03:18, 3 April 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) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All that shows up are just press releases. I might change my vote when I find better sources. __ Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Looks to be case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage including this abut more needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source seems promising. I am open to draftification as an ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear delete unless better sources could be found. I did a quick search and was unable to find and suitable RS cites. Go4thProsper (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Izan Esterhuizen

(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) 03:14, 3 April 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) 03:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to be case of WP:TOOSOON on my part, although passed the old WP:NRU guidelines. Lots of coverage, although not sure any of it reaches the WP:GNG threshold. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plumb, Washington

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

Declined PROD. Non-notable location. Per reference 3 (the only source of information that could be found) this was just a rural station with a nearby school and (for a big fat six years) a post office. These features could commonly be found in remote areas during the 19th century and do not amount to a "community", let alone one that is still recognized as such. No other information could be found and satellite view shows just a railroad track with a single farm nearby: [17]. Fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to some singular article about places in Thurston County that are no longer significant. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the past, this is "Plumb Station" or "Plumb's Station" and it's a train station. Sometime after about 1960 it became known as "Plumb". I don't know if it's fair to say these are the same thing. Now, on to the assessment. Meany doesn't even mention it, Meany might misclassify but as far as we know his collection of the names and meanings were accurate. It existed at a time when Meany should have picked it up if it was important. Basically if he didn't even bother to call it a town, much less even mention it well... Having gone through the local paper for the time period that the post office existed, There are mentions of the station and the post office. The post office was called Plumb (Remember back then post office names could only be one word). That post office is only mentioned once in regard to it's postmaster. Basically, the area that is the subject of the article is well known as "plumb/plumb's Station" from the late 1890s to sometime in the 1960s. I believe it's a grange district or named rural area. If it's not deleted, I will move it to Plumb Station, Washington because that's it's name.James.folsom (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lacey, Washington. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom Corner, Washington

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

Declined PROD. This place is just a non-notable intersection. It was possibly once known as "Mushroom Corner" for a nearby mushroom farm, but that's an informal designation and does not amount to a "community". Today this is a busy intersection in a residential area of Lacey, WA, not a community in its own right, if it ever was. Furthermore, the article's second section is unsourced and WP:NOTNEWS applies even if it were. This place fails WP:GEOLAND. Thurston County does recognize a Mushroom Corner voting precinct: [18] but otherwise nothing could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lacey, Washington. No one around here considers it a place. The fire mentioned really did happen, but I don't know that it really had lasting significance beyond the single news cycle. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few sources which would make it so that this article could be kept.

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

^[4]

😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen all those when I reviewed this, they are passing mentions and unreliable sources that simply repeat other unreliable sources. James.folsom (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The generic housing development at a former mushroom farm is not the same concept as Mushroom Corner even if it's near the same place. The two sources above do not discuss the named intersection. User:PaulGamerBoy360, Topoquest and hometownlocator are not actual sources...they just import data from GNIS and USGS maps... There's no indication this is a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or rewrite Similar to Jclemens, I would suggest taking the current article info, minus the fire and some cleanup, and add it under either the History or Geography subsection for Lacey, WA. I've found numerous local reporting (hundreds, dude, hundreds!) characterizing/recognizing it as a neighborhood, but it is certainly not a separate community in its own right so hats off to the GNIS cleanup crew. On a personal note for the rewrite option - writing the article to be declared as a neighborhood (not out of the ordinary - good holy cracker jacks - just take a look at all the Seattle neighborhood pages!) - I'm a born-and-raised Olympian and the area has been called and referred to as a local neighborhood or place my entire (ahem...) 40 years on this planet. "Let's go hang with Jamie at Mushroom Corner...", "I had to cut thru Mushroom Corner so I can make it home before curfew...", and "Do you think we can score some (redacted) from (redacted) if we meet them by Mushroom Corner..." Yes...notability and not first-hand experiences and sentimentality, just to throw that out there. Complete removal of this content would be a loss of something that does exist. And that means, in my opinion, a loss of knowledge.
- It would still get deleted because articles about neighborhoods generally get deleted.James.folsom (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, unless it's a neighborhood in a big city...! If merge wins out, I've found a few excellent (local) sources (prob. similar to yours) that describe the area decently as a neighborhood/place well enough so this shouldn't be too difficult to place into the Lacey article. However, if the Lacey article doesn't work for some - I proactively created a draft to house future Thurston County PRODs or AfD's under the GNIS cleanup project - User:Shortiefourten/Former communities, company towns, and rail stations in Thurston County, Washington. Yes, it is a user draft (no, not trying to circumvent anything - just prefer creating drafts this way) but if you wish to help edit the draft, feel free. I'm not territorial, assuming you overlook all those assault charges when someone tries to eat my Ben & Jerry's. Since consensus hasn't been reached yet, and there's a possibility of outright deletion, I'm merely saving the info to edit/create later with all proper attributions and Merge/Redirect steps to follow.

Shortiefourten (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think you have relevant sources for this article, you should share them so that we can account for them. Everyone here has access to differing sets of information, If there is info we don't have we should see it. James.folsom (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Lacey Either is fine with me, and I follow with my original argument from the talk page: Meany doesn't even list this place, so its likely 20th century. In fact the news reports say the mushroom farm has been growing mushrooms since the 1960s [19], so this has only had a name since then. Currently, this is just a residential area in Olympia Washington and these usually get deleted at AFD. The county considers this an election precinct and I could accept merging this to a list of election precincts in that county. The Mushroom farm is now probably apartments. The fire mentioned in the WP article is just routine life and pertains to the farm, and not the community. The local paper for Olympia doesn't mention mushroom corner until 1967, and going forward from then it has always been an election precinct and road intersection. This is just a neighborhood in Olympia. James.folsom (talk) 00:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Boone, Rolf (July 21, 2023). "Development plans emerge for former Ostrom's mushroom farm, Pacific Ave. apartments". The Olympian.
^ "Mushroom Corner Populated Place Profile / Thurston County, Washington Data". washington.hometownlocator.com. Retrieved 2024-04-03.
^ "Mushroom Corner, Washington". TopoQuest.
^ "Development plan emerges for former Ostrom's mushroom farm in Lacey | The Spokesman-Review". www.spokesman.com. Retrieved 2024-04-03.

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm closing this as Delete as I do not care for a Merge tagging from a main space article to a User page. Just my preference. If any editor would like to work with this article, it can be restored to Draft space on request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union Mill, Washington

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

Declined PROD. Only passing mentions of this place could be found: [20], [21], [22]. All of these indicate this was just a sawmill and never a "community". The existence of a post office is not significant, since in the pre-automobile era factory workers often lived at the facilities where they worked, so a post office would be necessary. And according to an article found by another user ([23]), the post office was barely a post office. Current satellite view just shows an industrial building surrounded by residential areas. Fails WP:GEOLAND. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to some singular article about places in Thurston County that are no longer significant. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after a couple days of searching, there just isn't much more than a sawmill with a small post office, as mentioned above. The only additional thing I could find - [24] (see pages 91-92) - a pretty cool look of the sawmill and a manly, man's description about horsepower and engine sizes. Because it had a PO (motor carriages or not) and it was a standard company "town" of its day, and I am adverse to deleting the article's info about the history because it doesn't fit a specific topic of notability or doesn't slot well into a 21st century definition of a town (just disagreeing, not an attack on the opinions of others). I recommend that we merge into a draft I began - User:Shortiefourten/Former communities, company towns, and rail stations in Thurston County, Washington - tightening the description to what it actually was. We could merge into a subsection on the Thurston County article under "Company towns", but we would lose the context and history (first mill in the USA to be run by electricity!) - it'd just be a list. The draft I hope to publish when the GNIS cleanup project for the county is completed, is for the purpose to combine all such "communities" that fail notability on their own but nevertheless, their history and existence not permanently removed from Wiki. I'm a big fan of WP:LOCAL, if that explains things better. Thanks for the converation!Shortiefourten (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That mill is potentially notable, but the quote town that may have existed there is not. The most optimal thing to do would be to scrub this, and write an article about the mill. The mill may really be notable. I haven't has of yet found and descriptions of the town that was supposedly there, and I want vote keep unless some evidence emerges on that front. I'm going to double check and then vote. The sources on the article are just circular best, the only one source there that might inform anything says "The Union Mills area" which is not encouraging. James.folsom (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just isn't any evidence this was anything other than a mill. The idea of a town is sourced from Meany, and he is unreliable for this. It's based on a letter he received that nobody has been able to run down. I know it seems like there is proof of a town based on the sources, but they all are just repeating what Meany said. I can find no mentions in the local paper of a town, granted I can't look at all the hits because there's a road and mill, but I feel 90% confident there's nothing to this. I saw one example of there being a "camp" at the mill [25]. I think the most telling thing that indicates its "Meany Fiction" is the fact that all local paper back them usually had a section where they published news from rural areas, that were sent in by contributing residents. These places are not always population centers but they leave this evidence of existence in the local paper. This 'place' has none that as far as I can tell, and that's pretty good predictor that it's fiction. James.folsom (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment This is a tough one on the ground, as the topos all the way back to 1937 show a row of houses on the opposite side of the road from the mill, heading west, which in fact are still there. Whether or not their occupants ever saw themselves as residents of a small town is anyone's guess. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I hadn't noticed that. I checked the property records on two of them, both listed rambler style built 1910.They could simply be company housing for the management. But the question in my mind is, are these the only houses out of many that made it to 1937. Or were these the only houses there during that time? There is a severe lack of sources that give any substance to this. I can be swayed with good sources, though. James.folsom (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this info along with property records, and the newspaper clipping about the post office closure: This what I think we got. In 1931 Union mills road had 15 families living on it, and were being served by a "post office" probably at the mill. There was a gas station (the presence of which can be can be explained by the fact that logging trucks burn gas) owned by Mesplay, the last postmaster. Note that Mesplay rd runs through the middle of that cluster of houses. I think that corner had houses built and mill employees lived in them. Now everything that I just wrote is original research, and verboten on Wikipedia. At a minimum it would be nice to see a source that unequivocally says people lived there. James.folsom (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Military organization#Commands, formations, and units. There is no real consensus for any outcome but I'm going to use administrative/closer's discretion and close this as a Redirect. Content is in the page history if anyone cares to Merge its content. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Organic unit

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

Unreferenced stub, with a request for references since 2011. One broken footnote to a general search. My BEFORE suggests this is a generic term used in various fields, and I can't confirm that there is a specific use of this in military. Our article fails WP:OR, WP:GNG and WP:V. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I created the article because I came across the term in a military context and had some difficulty figuring out what it meant, so wanted to make things easier for the next person. The term isn't uniquely military (I guess it falls under 2b at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic) but I can't remember the last time I saw it used outside the military context.

I didn't have the knowledge to create more than a stub, and was hoping people with more of a military background might expand on that. Evidently that didn't happen. I have no objections to deletion if nobody has an appetite to expand it. Calair (talk) 07:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Italian Wikipedia article from the inter-language links looks quite comprehensive with a total of 80 references. Left guide (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide True, but it may well be about something totally different. it:Organica militare is interwiki'd to Military organization, and by that logic, "organic unit" is just a synonym for military unit perhaps? Errr, @Gitz6666, any thoughts? I can't think of anyone else, could ask for comment at WT:ITALY I guess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that it.wiki article fully corresponds to military unit. Apparently organic unit is a generic concept and most uses are not related to military organisation, so maybe we could create a redirect from "Organic unit (military)" to "military unit". There are some occurances in the field of military studies and organisation, e.g., this 1953 U.S. Army Reserve regulation, "Organic unity. – A unit assigned to and forming an integral part of a military organization". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should have an article on the concept of military unit, which would be the common name. We could also consider a move of what we have, but WP:TNT might be a better approach? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into the Commands, formations, and units section of military organization, with a redirect, might be the best approach. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The term is actually pretty common in US military stuff, and normally refers to a smaller unit that's permanently assigned to a larger unit. So the 1st MP Company would be considered organic to the 1st Infantry Division. Official histories use the term quite often. Intothat darkness 14:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term is widely used, and was easy to add a reference to. So WP:OR, WP:GNG and WP:V are not issues. The issue as I see is that it is unlikely to be much more than what is there now. If that is enough for an article, then it can be kept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, nobody wants to keep, so this is probably going to be deleted if nobody can come up with an alternative such as merging or redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one has voted to delete, either. Since it's a widely used term, deleting it makes little sense. I'd say Weak Keep at this time. Intothat darkness 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Intothatdarkness Can you offer a rationale better than WP:ITSPOPULAR? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Wikipedia:POPULARPAGE? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard military term, commonly used in official histories to describe subordinate units that are part of a larger unit's organizational structure as opposed to a unit that's attached for a particular operation. Its use is easily confirmed, so the original delete rationale doesn't make much sense. @Hawkeye7 commented on this as well. Intothat darkness 11:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be a redirect to a suitable glossary article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge "Organic unit (military)" to "military unit" as an AtD. If it's a standard military term, perhaps we redirect to a suitable glossary article. BusterD (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify one target article with a link? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested adding it to Military organization#Commands, formations, and units Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Soft tennis at the 2022 Asian Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft tennis at the 2022 Asian Games – Mixed doubles

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Falls very short on the relevant SNG criteria. And that guidance pretty clearly says why it has noot GNG coverage or even is likely to possibly have it. Has only one source with is stats-only by the folks who ran it. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, Asia, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this might be new, Category:Soft tennis at the Asian Games is full of this kind of page. Geschichte (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Soft tennis at the 2022 Asian Games per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. There is insufficient coverage for "Soft tennis at the 2022 Asian Games – Mixed doubles" to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The parent article, Soft tennis at the 2022 Asian Games, currently is relatively short at 6,731 bytes as of this revision. My reading of Wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline is that this can be covered in the parent article. The other event articles at Category:Soft tennis at the 2022 Asian Games can be merged to the parent article too without their being size issues. As those articles are not included as part of this AfD, I recommend boldly doing that at editorial discretion outside of AfD. Cunard (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree that this should merge with Soft tennis at the 2022 Asian Games. The coverage is just too sparce. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (Chinese TV series)

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

Reviewed during NPP. Stub about a planned future television series that does not exist yet. No sources except ope brief announcement. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON BrigadierG (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to Draft:The Truth (Chinese TV series) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Incubation, which is a subsection of Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alernatives to deletion. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. According to this article from The Beijing News and the Chinese Wikipedia article at zh:风过留痕, filming of the television series took place between May 2023 and July 2023. No release date has been announced. I recommend moving to draft so that the content is not lost. If the television series is released and more reliable sources become available such that the television series becomes notable, editors can work on the draft and move it back to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as Cunard proposed. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom#Former manufacturers. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allwyn Cyclecars

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing RS which could be considered JMWt (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete had a look in Google Books and Google Scholar as well, no dice. A few passing mentions in directories is all the history books have to say unfortunately. BrigadierG (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They existed [26], but that's all I can find, nothing in Gbooks Scholar, News or Jstor. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Not much seems to be known about the car but it existed. It does appear in some of the standard reference books but with very little that can be added to this article. These refs appear on the German Wikipedia page about the car and can no doubt be added to this article. I don't see what harm is being done by keeping the article. I don't understand what RS means in the nomination so can't comment on that.Malcolma (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It means Reliable Sources see the WP:GNG. Existing as short notes in reference books is not normally considered significant coverage. JMWt (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM BrigadierG (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom#Former manufacturers. (Also, the second sentence is a word-for-word copy from a copyrighted site.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is the other way round. The "copyrighted site" has copied the Wikipedia article. A Google search finds the same words used on lots of sites. Malcolma (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly although that reference cites another, so the phrase could come from that.

To me the thing is probably moot, but if we are to save we probably need to reword. JMWt (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who wrote it I assure you I did not copy the text from any website or book.Malcolma (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom#Former manufacturers. Clearly short of WP:NCORP, and GNG too. It has a line on the redirect target, which is fine. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between redirect and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no complete coverage GQO (talk) 7:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

But is there a reason not to redirect? Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this is a plausible search term. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep:I started the article when trying to remove some of the red links in the page on Cyclecars which is why the ones for A and B have gone from the United Kingdom section. Deleting this article would I believe reinstate the red link. It could be removed again by linking to the German Language Wikipedia article which has a tranlation of the text. Or it could be referenced out to one of the external sites that have copied the text. If it is to be made a redirect is it to redirected to "List of car manufacturers of the United Kingdom#Former manufacturers" or "Cyclecars". I think it would be simpler to keep the article and don't see what harm it causes by keeping it. Malcolma (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting would not reinstate a red link, although there would be a question as to whether the red link is needed at all (and a circular link would be removed). Redirecting would also preserve your work in the page history should a notable page become possible. But the reason we shouldn't have the article as it stands is that we don't have an independently notable subject, nor enough information to write a Wikipedia page. The reader would be better served by the redirect, where the same information we have now can be placed within a wider context - giving the reader more information and background than they would get from here. Incidentally you should strike or at least unbold your "Keep" in this comment. You have already entered a bolded !vote. The bold text at AfD has a specific meaning, highlighting your !vote, and you shouldn't repeat your bolded !vote. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IXL (interactive agency)

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

Article is thinly sourced and has only been marginally improved since 2011. Unclear to me if the company was ever significant. William Graham ^talk 01:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Advertising. William Graham ^talk 01:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the article is taken up with merger, bankruptcy and subsequent asset purchases, none of which is sufficient to demonstrate notability. If there was ever notability, it would be from the company's position during its lifespan. In that respect, I added a Gartner analyst's commentary (2002) about the problems across that "e-consultancy" sector, mentioning this firm, but I don't see that and the prior Atlanta Business Journal item (1999) as sufficient to demonstrate that WP:NCORP was attained. AllyD (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Army

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company GraziePrego (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, Firearms, and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails WP:V and WP:NCOMPANY. Completly unreferenced - fancrufty entry for hobbists, not good enough for Wikipedia. PS. My BEFORE shows a few of their products are reviwed in this book but I am not seeing anything about the company itself. And the book is self-published so... fail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: completely unsourced article and after a quick search I have been unable to find any sources to meet WP:CORP. Jtrrs0 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfiltered WP:PROMO about something specialist and with a small purchase base. Nate • (chatter) 22:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seems unlikely to meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:NCORP. ProQuest turns up only a couple of hits which turn out to be passing mentions in trade journals. Article serves as nothing more than a product catalog at this point; it managed to survive with zero references for nearly 16 years. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Dejaqo (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass wp:gng Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Fifi Taft Rockefeller, proud of role as 'town character'". The Cincinnati Post. 1997-08-04. pp. 7, 33. Retrieved 2024-04-03.

[:1-2] Pulfer, Laura (1997-08-05). "Fifi, beloved street person, dead at 81". The Cincinnati Enquirer. p. 11. Retrieved 2024-04-03.

[3] Carmony, Donald F. (Donald Francis) (1966). Indiana: a self-appraisal. Internet Archive. Bloomington, Indiana University Press. p. 54.

[4] Cash, Kevin (1975). Who the hell is William Loeb?. Internet Archive. Manchester, N.H. ; Amoskeag Press. p. 256.

[5] Wecker, David (2014). Square pegs : stories about everything and nothing. Internet Archive. [Place of publication not identified] : BrandFlick. pp. 233–236. ISBN 978-0-615-94752-5.

[6] Pulfer, Laura (1998). I beg to differ : politically incorrect, proudly Midwestern, potentially funny. Internet Archive. Wilmington, Ohio : Orange Frazer Press. pp. 7–8. ISBN 978-1-882203-24-6.

[:0-7] Boone, Rolf (July 21, 2023). "Development plans emerge for former Ostrom's mushroom farm, Pacific Ave. apartments". The Olympian.

[8] "Mushroom Corner Populated Place Profile / Thurston County, Washington Data". washington.hometownlocator.com. Retrieved 2024-04-03.

[9] "Mushroom Corner, Washington". TopoQuest.

[10] "Development plan emerges for former Ostrom's mushroom farm in Lacey | The Spokesman-Review". www.spokesman.com. Retrieved 2024-04-03.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]