Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< June 12	June 14 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Reza Khoshshans

AfDs for this article:

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

Refund requested after soft deletion so here we are again. Two editors in support of deletion and no support for keep in the first AfD so hopefully we can get a bigger consensus here. As before, the subject does not qualify under WP:GNG, as the sources (both in article and in BEFORE search) appear to be affiliated with the author, press releases, or trivial mentions. (One source might qualify, but we need multiple.) The subject also does not meet the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Soft deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still no sources found. This is about all I can find [1], which does not help notability. Even what's in the article now isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article should be deleted as it fails to meet the WP:GNG notability guidelines. Most sources are either affiliated with the subject or are press releases, offering only trivial mentions that do not establish the subject’s notability. Furthermore, it is essential that the subject meets the notability criteria of either WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NWRITER. More coverage is needed from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. AstridMitch (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiehan Hay

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Insufficient independent WP:SIGCOV to satisfy GNG. Bgv. (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This article should be moved to the draft space as it does not currently meet WP:GNG. It needs more coverage from independent, reliable sources to qualify for a standalone article. AstridMitch (talk) 5:36, 19 June 2024

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 University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UWSP Albertson Center for Learning Resources

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

Not written in an encyclopedic format and fails WP:GNG - all of the sources are primary. If kept, needs significant cleanup. Some of this information may be able to be merged elsewhere, but I'm not sure where. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Wisconsin. SportingFlyer T·C 19:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a former library on a university campus. Absolutely nothing here is cited to independent sources. Most of the sources provided are from this library's website itself; the rest are from the websites of the university it served. A redirect to the university campus is probably warranted; unfortunately, that article is a mess, too. There's probably citable material for the decision to demolish the structure and the plans to replace it, but I hesitate to suggest "merge" per se when the level of detail here is so excessive. Lubal (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 15:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article requires independent verification. The cited sources are primary and from the subject, which does not provide a balanced perspective. If kept, it will be of utmost importance to rewrite the article in a professional, encyclopedic tone. Its excessive detail does not warrant a merge. Instead, we could condense and redirect relevant information to the university’s article (which itself needs much improvement). AstridMitch (talk) 6:01, 19 June 2024

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!} 22:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue cheese wontons

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

No significant coverage in high quality, reliable, independent sources. All coverage is blog posts, recipes and local review posts. — HTGS (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and New Zealand. — HTGS (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per your comments - no sigcov. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article, unfortunately, falls short of the notability guidelines. It requires more significant coverage in high-quality, reliable, independent sources. The existing content comes from blog posts, recipes, and local reviews, which, while interesting, don’t establish the subject’s notability. Thus, it doesn’t warrant a standalone encyclopedia article. AstridMitch (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2024

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Bharatiya

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL & WP:GNG. Doesn't appear to have won any elections and majority of sources appear to be promotional/puffery. jellyfish ✉ 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and India. jellyfish ✉ 21:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPOL as well GNG. BLP require strong sourcing to satisfy GNG. Saqib (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and businessman is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: the current article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. However, many sources exist on the subject, so editors can still enhance its credibility and notability. --AstridMitch (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego-Imperial Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. There is one secondary source, about a small fire in 2004, which does not make the council/camp notable--and one wonders whose bottle rockets they were. Councils/camps from the BSA or any other organization are rarely notable in their own right and this one is no expection. Drmies (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-direct to List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Does not meet WP:NCORP to warrant its standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Drmies.

Axad12 (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annalena Ley

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

Poorly sourced gymnast. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; this is what I did come across. JTtheOG (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Chile. JTtheOG (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage of this individual, outside of the Olympics website. [2]. I don't see enough sourcing to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I vote to delete this article for now due to the lack of reliable sources. However, if more information becomes available in the future, the article could be recreated. Waqar💬 17:18, 14 June 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 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24saat.org

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. Sources in article only contain trivial mentions. The censorship and the website's block and suppression constitute a wider-ranging political issue, and were not specific to this website only. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Bgv. (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. Bgv. (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Collopy

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

All I found for this rugby player were a pair of transactional announcements (1, 2). There is some minor coverage, but nothing non-routine. JTtheOG (talk) 20:28, 13 June 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) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair bit of coverage, but I'm not sure there is enough to pass WP:GNG here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 14 June 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. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Duet

AfDs for this article:

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG. A merge to a page of lists List of programs broadcast by CMT was suggested, but that is simply a page with a list of articles...it does not have details on any of the articles within its paramaters. Therefore, I do not feel it is an appropriate target for a MERGE. I did REDIRECT the page there, but that was reversed. I would only support a MERGE if there was an appropriate page to add any info to, but currently I can not identify any. Therefore, a deletion of the article is the only outcome, unless independent notability can be established. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show ended in 2008, so whatever sources were listed in the last AfD are probably all you'll find. They're ok, not super-extensive, but enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or merge a relevant section in the network's article, I'm not fussed about it. I don't think it should be deleted, we seem to have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per the above, this show aired 16 years ago, so granted the majority of sources are likely dead-linked or no longer exist on the web, but the show was definitely notable at the time of the page's creation and produced several country acts with varying success, had a panel and hosts who were reputable insiders in the industry, and was a program aired on a prominent TV station. It's also bizarre that there was considerable discussion surrounding keeping at least some of the information on this show and merging it onto another page, but instead of anyone doing that, someone hastily took matters into their own hands months later and just blanket-deleted the whole page. I also see a lot of content listed on the page that could (and should) easily have sources added to it that just... isn't there for whatever reason. CloversMallRat (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a Common Sense Media review [3] and one discussion of a performer [4]. It's not a slam dunk, but Common Sense review is a RS. The rest help too; Common Sense, Variety and Billboard should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here's one about the winner: [5]. We have enough for at least a basic article about the show and the winners. Oaktree b (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! The article doesn't need to be big and grandiose to remain on Wikipedia. There are enough sources to make it notable and relevant, but the show aired 16 years ago and the Internet doesn't just keep articles around forever. I remember when it aired, it was quite an ordeal at the time in the country music sphere. I'm sure it would've been sourced out the wazoo if we had the resources we have now with how much media content is all over now vs. back then. People were barely even using Facebook in 2008. But we can't go back in time. I do think the article needs cleaned up a bit, I will say that. There's definitely a way to make some of the content read better, i.e. CloversMallRat (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the discussion veered off onto a talk page, in a addition to the one here, but the last discussion had the sourced discussed by Ten Pound Hammer. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:14, 17 June 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 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Cintron

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

Vice President of Communications for the Tampa Airport, winner of multiple small awards doesn't establish WP:GNG for this article subject. In my BEFORE, I could only find mentions related to her work at the airport. The Emmy awards might be notable but they were regional and I wasn't prepared to watch a video to see if this claim was verified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article as it stands is a collection of trivia and needs to be completely rewritten. (I removed a link to a Wordpress blog among the references.) Two sources might be said to clear the WP:GNG bar: the Tampa Bay Times piece and the Tampa Bay Business Journal article covering her hiring at the airport are both significant coverage of her in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The rest of the sources are trivial mentions (and the "Guide to Tampa Bay" profile is basically a marketing promo). I could probably be persuaded to keep based on the TBT/TBBJ references, but looking at all the sources in context as required, the subject appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL local broadcast journalist/corporate PR professional whose career does not warrant an article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought there would be more coverage of her time as a news anchor, but apparently not. BrigadierG (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree there are two sources that satisfy GNG, per Dclemens1971. A lot of the trivia, specifically any cited by an unreliable source, should be removed. It might make the result a stub but there’s plenty of room for stubs, if they are notable (which, admittedly is determined by consensus). Zsinj^Talk 02:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not impressed with the local Emmy win. The position held at the airport is non-notable, otherwise, she's simply a local reporter. Seems to be good at her job, I'm just not sure it rises to the level of notability for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 13 June 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!} 23:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hunt (journalist)

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

Heavily embellished promotional bio created by an SPA, with no actual in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources. Except for nigeriasportsnews.com, which appears to be a puff piece, none of the sources refbombed in the article are actually about the subject—only tangential mentions from issues he has been involved in. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Jamiebuba, who recently accepted the draft at AfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Environment, Internet, California, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is notable as a journalist. Several coverage from BBC and also a host of a show on BBC as well. Subject is a main personality on a notable international station. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) – Note: User has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing.[reply]
- Please provide a valid, policy-based reason when commenting at AfDs. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, his cause/work may be notable but notability isn't inherited. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The controversy section isn't terribly notable, rest of the sourcing is simple confirmation of employment. I don't find sources we'd use to build an article. Sadly as a free-lancer, there likely will not be much critical notice of their work; this assumes no awards such as a Pulitzer or an Emmy. I don't find any sort of confirmation of awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 13 June 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!} 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmic Kart

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Article is unsourced and a google search returned only two pages of passing mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, and Italy. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't find anything that would establish notability. _WADroughtOfVowels^P 15:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all I can find on this is sales, I couldn't find anything useful. I also couldn't find much racing record wise, I only know the racing division talked about exists because of promo material. This just isn't notable at all, if someone wanted to keep this I'd like to see multiple ind. sources and a sourced racing record with something showing their notability via ind. sources as a race outfit. JM 12624 13:07, 20 June 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. No new comments after two relistings so I'm going to close this as No consensus. It would help if interested editors could add relevant sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Mlakar

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

With only database source listed, the article of this WP:BLP1E#one-time Olympics participant clearly fails WP:GNG. According to Sports Reference results, Mlakar was not in the top three winners of 1984 Winter Olympics. She also never received any medal record. Corresponding article on Slovene Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced stub. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Yugoslavia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yugoslavia at the Olympics per no medal, no GNG coverage, WP:NOLYMPICS BrigadierG (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are Mlakar Slovenian news hits for Jana Mlakar. The news pieces are about a museum director/cultural heritage worker. Judging from pictures she doesn't resemble Jana Mlakar Adamič, a seemingly notable ethnologist (and museum employee) who was born in 1962 as well, but on 12 January [6] [7]. I would hope that someone can shed light on who these people are, and whether there is a relation to the skier. Geschichte (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She seems to be notable (given the presentation in the podcast mentioned below) but in-depth sources are missing at the moment. The German Wikipedia contains some more information in de:Jana Mlakar and there may be offline newspaper articles that reported on her in more detail. The museum director/cultural heritage worker was born in 1955 (per Cobiss) and Jana Adamič Mlakar seems to be a completely unrelated person as she is from a different region. --TadejM ^{my talk} 02:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently she was the 'best cross-country skier' in Sarajevo? Hungarian newspaper archive Arcanum brings up a dozen-or-so matches, mainly in the Serbian newspaper Magyar Szó. There's mention of her in this tabloid-y article about the "divorces of the best Slovenian athletes". BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If what the user above says turns out to be accurate, then this article deserves a place here. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, in my honest opinion GNG should be covered with these sources. Will also take a look at some sl/sh sources. A09|(talk) 15:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:12, 13 June 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!} 16:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Lekić

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

This page is about a non-notable friend of an anonymous school shooter in Belgrade. It adds no information that isn't present in the main article for the shooting. I can find no more sources that would add anything to this Ionophore (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ionophore (talk) 16:48, 13 June 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 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also cannot find any additional sources related to this. Even if you assume the sources listed qualify as WP:SIGCOV (I don't think they do), there has been no sustained notability for this individual (WP:NSUSTAINED). There was only one burst of coverage in the immediate aftermath of the shooting. The article has a lot of problems in general, and I don't think it can be salvaged at this time. Garsh (talk) 03:22, 14 June 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!} 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Swift

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

Fails notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). The article has made no progress in years, research shows no potential to rectify. Spagooder (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like an easy call. No claim to notability and the article lacks supporting citations adequate to justify a Wiki article. Easy delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 18 June 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!} 16:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maksim Mosin

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

Second tier football player with no real sources either here or gleaned from a search. The Russian version should probably also be deleted, as it has basically the same sources, unfortunately, I do not know Russian. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A minor athlete without substantial coverage in reliable sources. The Russian version might hold some value, the language barrier makes verification a bit difficult. Leaning towards deletion. Waqar💬 17:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:34, 14 June 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!} 16:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

András Kocsis

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

Non-notable diplomat and critically-undersourced BLP. Google searches aren't turning up anything usable (strings: "András Kocsis", ["András Kocsis" diplomat], ["András Kocsis" ambassador]), with the best sources found that way being interviews with the subject or reporting Stuff He Says and the results quickly sinking into non-responsive territory after. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ANYBIO. No sources found either that are non-routine. Mdann52 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO Saqib (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 13 June 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. Nominator blocked as a sockpuppet of a LTA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donbas separatism

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

The article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia, but it was later deleted there per the Wikipedia:No original research policy. See ru:Википедия:К удалению/25 ноября 2015#Донбасский сепаратизм. Aldij (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Aldij (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic in itself is definitely notable. And as far as I can see we don't have an article that would describe this phenomenon holistically. Marcelus (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Article can definitely be improved and expanded (especially the 21st century section) to make it of higher quality, but should not be deleted because it clearly discusses a note-worthy subject. TeddyRoosevelt1912 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 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. There is a consensus to Keep this article although whether or not a TV series is popular is not comparable to demonstrated notability and I'm not sure whether or not those awards are considered important. Please add any newly found sources to the article as I think the nominator was justified to nominate this article for deletion consideration based on its current condition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roll No 21

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

Fails WP:GNG, It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It does not have in-depth analysis or substantial coverage in reputable publications. The references cited are primarily primary sources or do not offer the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. M S Hassan (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article in The Hindu. Award. One of the first Indian original production of Cartoon Network. Maybe that would have deserved a more elaborate rationale for deletion this time? See also https://showtimepandit.com/roll-no-21-shocking-story-behind-its-downfall/ (expert "blog"); mentioned here (see table) https://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/tv-shows-for-kids-enter-golden-age-in-india-116101700922_1.html. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have elaborated the rationale for deletion, Thank you for your feedback. M S Hassan (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think the article in The Hindu is both in-depth and independent, though, and it's a pretty reputable newspaper. The program has received an award and multiple sources describe it as very popular (see above, or this) and significant. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NTV and is a reputed and notable series. Imsaneikigai (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Cartoon is popular and has won significant awards at Cartoon Network Super Toon Awards with CN Super Toon of the Year, Chatur Toon and Loser Villain. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 17 June 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 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KWCC-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 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 14:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Diablo Silverado Council

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

Fails WP:GNG. No independent notability shown in reliable secondary sources. Secondary sources provided are either unreliable or passing mentions. spryde | talk 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America in California#Mount Diablo Silverado Council. There's a lot of content there. The article simply needs a good editor. --evrik ^(talk) 13:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability is only an essay, it saves me from having to type out my argument. Even if a target can't be decided now, a re-direct can be quickly created at any time by any editor. Graywalls (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, basically. Just no notability. This is not unlike what we see in articles on university departments--they are rarely notable in their own right, and that their existence relies on being part of a notable organization doesn't make them notable. I doubt that really any councils are notable--looking at the category and clicking randomly on one, San Diego-Imperial Council, that one is not notable. Drmies (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. It's weird how some sections of the project just accumulate cruft. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Topic is not notable, as councils, even with so many references (many of which are primary), are not notable to begin with. Also, there isn't much coverage on the topic. Haruka Amaranth 09:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable.
Axad12 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 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 14:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Window well cover

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

WP:NOTADVERT Promotion with half of the references by a purveyor of the product described. The article even has a section named "How to purchase a window well cover". This is not needed and salvageable content - if any - can be safely included in Window well. Biologos (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "How to purchase" and the liability sections lead me to believe this is PROMO for the product. I'm not impressed with the sourcing given; ok the thing exists, but beyond hardware store listings, I don't find any discussion of this item. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promo and possible COI sourcing, and most of what is said is WP:SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Port Phillip Bay mid-air collision

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The accident has a lack of continued coverage with one to three articles popping up in january with the release of the preliminary report but are not enough to justify its notability and not much in depth coverage. Whilst tragic, I can't see what would make this accident notable as there's not much that would give this accident additional enduring significance Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Australia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems highly unlikely that any notability factors will emerge from the investigation, but the article could always be re-created if they do. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable under event or GNG. Avgeekamfot (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 01:43, 16 June 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. The Allmusic sources are a start, but consensus appears to be in favor to delete the article. Malinaccier (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Akhtar

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Dowrylauds (talk) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found for a musician, this appears to be a different person [8]. The sourcing used in the article now isn't enough to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in this reliable AllMusic staff written bio here it states that her second album reached No. 4 on the Billboard World Music chart and that another of her albums sold 50,000 copies in Japan. Some album reviews here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:49, 6 June 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) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Applied and presented sources fail GNG, ANYBIO and NMUSIC; nothing approaching RS covering this BLP. BusterD (talk) 17:07, 17 June 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.

Keep as mentioned above.

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!} 23:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Koumbios

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

The subject is not notable. There are few (if any) reliable secondary sources; the single source used is apparently from 2006 and only available through archive.is. LoganP25 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LoganP25 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I see that many reliable Greek media have posted about him: 1)https://www.athensvoice.gr/city-guide/music/492901/mihalis-koympios/ 2) https://www.naftemporiki.gr/culture/1405577/stagones-o-synthetis-michalis-koympios-sto-megaro-moysikis-athinon/ 3) https://www.athensvoice.gr/city-guide/music/350565/mihalis-koympios-apanthisma-sto-idryma-mihalis-kakogiannis/ 4) https://toprotoselido.gr/i-fm-records-paroysiazei-ti-nea-tis-kykloforia-quot-magical-rebetiko-quot/ 5) https://www.newsbreak.gr/politismos/434321/michalis-koympios-paroysiazei-stagones-megaro-moysikis-athinon-2/ 6) https://www.naftemporiki.gr/culture/371889/michalis-koubios-ta-provlimata-mas-einai-gigantia-kai-epeigonta/ 7) https://www.in.gr/2016/04/26/life/music/o-mixalis-koympios-se-ena-theama-poikilwn-metamorfwsewn/ 8) https://www.ethnos.gr/music/article/184189/miltospasxalidhstoneosingletoystonoyranometoysmixalhkoympiokaithrodef 9) https://www.tovima.gr/2017/11/24/culture/mixalis-koympios-paroysiazei-to-almpoym-tsikari-m-ston-stayro-toy-notoy/ With that being said, the article needs to be improved though, in order to include that material. (Note: I am a newcomer, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.) ArchidamusIII (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Analysis of ArchidamusIII's sources:

Ad or listing for a performance, doesn't qualify for the GNG (not SIGCOV, independent)
Ditto
Similar, but might have significant coverage
Significant coverage, but I'm not sure if this is a paid promotional piece.
Clearly promotional concert advertising
Interview (not independent), probably also promotional
Another concert listing
A review! – this might count towards the GNG, but it doesn't actually say much about Koumbios, so it probably isn't sigcov
Yet another concert listing

I'm sorry, ArchidamusIII, but I don't think any of these sources show that the subject is notable. If you can find others that show significant coverage, I am willing to change my !vote, but based on these and what's in the article I am in favor of deletion. Toadspike [Talk] 07:58, 13 June 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) 13:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've tried finding album reviews for this individual, none in RS. Some concert listings found, but none of the sources above seem helpful. I don't see notability with what's given. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 13 June 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 programmes broadcast by Hungama TV#Animated series. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vir: The Robot Boy

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated_series. Poor sources with no indepth coverage and reviews from critics. RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 18 June 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 also substantial copyvio of https://guillermopineda.com/research/ – also authored by the subject – and so this deletion could also be considered under WP:CSD#G12 in addition to the consensus here. ^Complex/_Rational 14:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Pineda

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

A CV-type autobiography with minimal sourcing. Whether as a businessperson, an academic or as a political adviser, I am not seeing evidence that the subject has attained biographical notability here. The Prensa Libre Q&A item (2011) is closest to a 3rd party source on his teaching role, and I don't see inclusion in a 30-under-30 list as sufficient. There are a couple of academic papers (as LGP Rodas) but these appear insufficient to demonstrate academic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Guatemala. AllyD (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Advisor to the Deputy Minister of xyz is not a notable position. This is a resume for a political staffer, basically a regular office job. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I dont see notability per GNG and there is no evidence for notability per WP:NPROF. --hroest 10:52, 17 June 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 Bab-el-Mandeb#History. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge of the Horns

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

CRYSTALBALL proposed infrastructure with marginal & routine coverage for a bridge project that was cancelled 15 years ago. Very few references none of which are anything more than routine coverage of a proposed project. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Yemen. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bab-el-Mandeb#History where this is mentioned. This was alwasy a pie-in-the-sky idea that never had realistic plans. Redirect Al Noor City as well. Even in the aughts, the idea of building bridge to nowhere or to a megacity built out of nothing in Yemen should have gotten you laughed out of the room. Reywas92^Talk 15:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas. No evidence of long-term notability to justify a standalone article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:02, 14 June 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 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Encyclopedia

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

Doesn't pass GNG. There is supposedly one review(?) of this on JSTOR from "Reference & User Services Quarterly" but it was being odd and wouldn't show it to me. Even then, not enough. Redirect/merge to United States Holocaust Memorial Museum?

FWIW this is not about the book The Holocaust Encyclopedia, which is notable but we don't have an article on it. This is about the USHMM online resource. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Museum as suggested seems fine. This is basically an extension of the collections housed by the Museum. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, History, Judaism, Websites, Germany, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed. Part of the museum and can easily be covered within. Star Mississippi 02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sobovitz

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

Created by UPE user (subject admitted in IRC), a LOT of the references are the subjects own work, therefore nothing for notability. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Israel, and Europe. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not remove the problematic references and keep the other ones? Many of them are from independent media sources (Brussels Times, Times of Israel, Politico, Al Jazeera, etc.). 2A02:2788:224:538:311F:AC6C:14C6:4B14 (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're written by Sobovitz; you can't use articles by the subject, those are primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination, can confirm that this is un-disclosed COI as dislosed on IRC in #wikipedia-en-help, and the sourcing is insufficient to establish WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it's a paid job, I won't even bother delving into whether it meets the GNG or not. I've also nominated for deletion an article closely related to Dan Sobovitz, which was also created by the same author as this one. --Saqib (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can this not be speedy deleted, as it was created by/for UPE? Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If not speedy deleted, I'd delete for lack of sourcing. The Brussels Post and one Haretz article are written by the subject. Others are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 14 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanus Muller

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

This article falls far short of what is expected of a BLP. Had this been written only a few days ago, I would have immediately draftified it. As it is now a few years old, a discussion needs to happen in order to do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Music, and South Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough book reviews (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR. As for the shape the article is in: despite the plethora of scary cleanup banners, I've seen much worse (in BLPs in no danger of being deleted) and WP:DINC. And calling for draftification of a years-old article with years-old cleanup banners is just a dishonest way of calling for its full deletion after it sits unaddressed for another half-year. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The recent addition of book reviews strengthens the article's compliance with the notability guideline for authors. Deletion seems like a harsh solution. We should improve the article, not delete it. Waqar💬 17:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per WP:NAUTHOR the subject is notable. While there are some issues with the article, this is WP:NOTCLEANUP. --hroest 10:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I accept the reasons for moving Draft:Friedrich Wilhelm Jannasch to drafts and will continue working on it, @UtherSRGhas also reversed my call to move Draft:South African Music Encyclopedia into the mainspace. Seems like a blanket clampdown on my actions, without regard for the relative merit of the articles. Viljowf (talk) 15:24, 18 June 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 TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures in a TV Nation

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

I can't find sources that go in detail about this book beyond "Michael Moore wrote this". Redirect to Michael Moore? Or TV Nation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two sources about the subject:
1. Deggans, Eric (1998-12-21). "For those TV viewers who can still read" (pages 1 and 2). Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "But the story of how Michael Moore got this subversive bit of TV past the media buyers on Madison Avenue and cookie-cutter programers at NBC proves an engaging, delightful story. ... Wondering how Moore put together a story showing New York cabdrivers are more likely to pick up a white guy who served prison time for murder than a black man with a clean record? ... All of these stories and more fill out the pages of Adventures in a TV Nation, a blow-by-blow account of the stories behind the stunts that made TV Nation one of the most entertaining experiments in social criticism around."
2. This entry in Book Review Index, 1999 Cumulation notes that there was a review in Adventures in a TV Nation in "Ent We - N 27 '98 – p73 [1–50]".
  This entry suggests that Adventures in a TV Nation was reviewed in the 3 July 1998 edition of Entertainment Weekly. This was the home page of Entertainment Weekly in 1999. This is an example book review published on 17 February 1999. I was unable to find a review of Adventures in a TV Nation saved in Internet Archive. I've asked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#1998 book review of Adventures in a TV Nation in Entertainment Weekly for information about this source.
I support a merge to TV Nation per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion if the book does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. The book is about the author Michael Moore's work on the television show TV Nation, so I recommend redirecting to TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation.
Cunard (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support adding a mention to TV Nation and merging then (well, basically redirecting). The Tampa source is decent but the other one (as found by the people where you requested it) is only one sentence. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent link to the discussion about the Entertainment Weekly article: "The November 27, 1998 review by Bruce Fretts is only 1 sentence long: "In-your-face documentarian and working-class advocate chronicles the development of his late, Emmy-award-winning newsmagazine show"."

I agree with a merge/redirect to TV Nation#Cancellation and post-TV Nation since there is only one good source, which is insufficient for the book to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria. Cunard (talk) 09:12, 15 June 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.

I'm not sure if there is some connection between these two players and it would have been useful to get the article creator's opinion here but right now, I'm closing this discussion as a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Đorđević

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

This Serbian men's footballer, who was last known for playing in 2015 before disappearing, has not received enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. The only secondary sources I found are a report of him returning from injury in January and July transfer news, both from mentioned year. I'll admit that I don't know enough Serbian media to know if said sources are reliable, but neither of those pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Corresponding article on Serbian Wikipedia is likewise a stub; neither of the two sources listed there show in-depth coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Catania had a player Stefan Đorđević (footballer, born 1991) from 2016. Geschichte (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bicycle. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be snappy. My comment was a reply to a part found in the original AFD: "Possible dubious story of Đorđević being a former footballer of Italian club Catania, for which he has played 32 games since 2016. However, I can't find anything to verify it". This comment was removed some 8 hours before you entered the discussion. Geschichte (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Storyland Studios

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

Doesn't meet notability; there are no reliable significant coverage; hilghly promotional page 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Amusement parks, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 13 June 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. This was WP:CSD#G5 eligible as the creator was tagged as a sock of a blocked master that was blocked before the creation of the article. ‎. UtherSRG (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mykyta Nagatkin

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

Person is not notable, the article is promotional only with no significant reliable coverage; speedy delete? 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Nick Nagatkin another previous attempt to recreate the page 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete - non-notable, undisclosed paid-for spam, created by Bodiadub sockpuppet, associated with known Wikibusines article Digis. MER-C 15:26, 15 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digis

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

Not notable IT company with no significant coverage; I've removed spam and paid placements; 鲁纳娄于 (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, Cyprus, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Delete - non-notable, undisclosed paid-for spam, created by Bodiadub sockpuppet, known Wikibusines article. MER-C 15:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article describing a software development firm going about its business. The 2019 item from Zik provides detail about the company's origins but neither there not elsewhere am I seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 18 June 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!} 07:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bays Brewery

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

Found some (old) coverage independent of business but not significant and reliable coverage per WP:Notability that establishes notability worth of an article, even in stub form, in my opinion. The business is no longer operational and permanently closed and even when open was a very small local brewery in New Zealand not notable or well known to the public (lived there for 15 years). I raised a PROD recently on this article but was not aware that there had been a previous failed PROD long before oldprods were added to talk pages, hence an AfD. Whisky and more (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Companies. Whisky and more (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "established in December 1993. It is no longer in operation." and nothing much else pretty well says it all. Bduke (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Not much exposure outside of the region it originated in. Ajf773 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I believe removing this article is the best course of action. The information provided indicates the subject lacks notability. Waqar💬 17:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable and no sigcov. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:51, 15 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raba Khan

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

Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. May be she is a celebrity but not notable to be in Wikipedia like the other youtubers. No independent notability other than being a youtuber. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Internet, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 06:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Radio, Entertainment, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the list of a 30 people for a region doesn't mean we have to create an article for each of them. No, we do not have articles for each of them.
The nom seems to be focused on the subject rather than individual. Regardless what they're known for, if they receive enough notable coverage, they are notable. And this person most definitely passes GNG regardless of the causes. It's not limited to a one-off event (the Forbes list) but sustained coverage exist for this individual.
No independent notability other than being a YouTuber That's the most illogical rationale I've ever seen on an AFD nom. We have thousands of biographies on YouTubers. Since when, YouTubers aren't notable solely based on the fact that they are YouTubers? It all comes down to coverage, if they fulfill the notability criteria, they are notable.
And even if taking this fallacy into consideration just for the sake of it, this person has received coverage for other ventures outside their digital content creation on YouTube. YouTube contributed to their initial fame but from then on she has received coverage for other activities such as vlogs on Facebook or media collaborations, UNICEF activities, writing, singing, modeling, etc. X (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AlbeitPK, I'm inviting you to do a complete source analysis. You clearly did not practice WP:BEFORE, which is not a surprise, you being an inexperienced user. As a friendly advice, I'd urge you to spend more time on article creation and expansion before hopping onto AFD. Familiarize yourself with the policies and when you get a good grip you may participate in these spaces.
Albeit being largely primary, the Ice Today piece alone is a clear indication of notability. And independent in-depth coverage do exist. Sources are available in Bengali exist as well, all of which are not included in the article, but I'll be happy to list them if one asks. X (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Source analysis:

This is essentially just a paragaph mentioning she posted a video.
Daily Star 30-under-30 #1 has a good paragraph describing her
A short interview with a little more significant commentary
Daily Sun 30-under-30 article doesn't say much other than republishing the announcement
An entire article on her, which is probably sourced from an interview, but the newspaper is the one making statements so I think it's valid.
Another 4 good paragraphs in the Forbes list
BBC Bengali mention in review of Facebook influencers, only a little but it is there
More Daily Star coverage under being a 30-under-30 winner
Article on her, though whether the Vanity Star is a reliable source I don't know
The interview mentioned, which is very long but primary. Good for the article, but probably doesn't establish notability (but the other sources probably do)
Short article

Plus:

So, while a lot of the coverage is just tiny 5-sentence mentions, she does seem to be notable (according to these things) in Bengali online media. The book and the popularity probably push her over "random youtuber", and I think the last two sources + the interview + the forbes list and associated sources all together meet the significant coverage criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Yes, almost all the sources that discusses her starts with something like "Famous social media personality" or "Popular content creator", etc. She also has been the subject of at least 5 full length talk show interviews by the countries largest media Prothom Alo alone. They also dedicated entire episodes of shows on her lifestyle (one about "What's Raba Khan shopping this Eid"). And numerous national and international magazine features. Everything combined speaks for her notability. It appears the nominator is an inexperienced editor, hence they do not have a good grasp over Wiki notability guidelines. I won't say I'm always right, but this is the first WIR article (2nd overall) created by me that has been brought to AFD (I'm taking a Wiki break but had to respond here when I saw the mail, NGL, the nom rationale is ridiculous.) X (talk) 14:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for the source analysis Mrfoogles. I am content that on the basis of those sources the subject meets WP:N. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 02:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source analysis above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. czar 06:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSKJ-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another LPTV with mostly national programming and little-to-no significant coverage to speak of, which is of little surprise for an eventual HC2/Innovate station. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and yet another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect.. another station to become a redirect.. --Danubeball (talk) 00:20, 18 June 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 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. The Delete views carried more P&G weight than the Keep ones, but the proposed merger received enough support to get picked as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election by 2024 constituency

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

These are not official election results; they are projections by a pair of private researchers. As a result, this article appears to be WP:SPECULATION by presenting a single set of calculations as an alternative history. The article is based almost entirely on the researchers' spreadsheet or on the Sky News article written by one of the researchers. Per WP:NOPAGE, this topic can be adequately covered by the existing material at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies: "In January 2024, professors Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher published detailed estimates of what the result would have been had the new boundaries been in place at the previous general election. This analysis shows the Conservatives would have won seven additional seats in 2019, with Labour losing two, the Liberal Democrats three and Plaid Cymru two." Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep

No, these are notional results used by BBC for the upcoming election, and notional results are an essential part when new boundaries are introduced in the UK. Thomediter (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're addressed in detail in 2024 United Kingdom general election and also at 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. Why do they need a WP:STANDALONE page? And why are there no other pages of notional results for other elections prior to a constituency boundary shift? Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're not adressed in enough detail, if the voting figures are missing, they still matter. Just because there is no page previously doesn't make the page irrelevant. There are numerous examples of this such there being a page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1979, despite there being no page about Portugal in the Eurovision Song Contest 1977. Thomediter (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (which, just to be clear, is very strong too, but we don't need to specify that). This is a fork from 2024 United Kingdom general election. That page is the correct place for an encyclopaedic treatment of the matter. What is the case for pulling this out from that page? Only to give the polling excessive detail. Why is it useful? Because there is an election in a few weeks, and people in the UK are interested in the notional results following boundary changes. But... it won't have very much relevance at all once the election takes place. There is some possibility that some aspect of the prediction will be so interesting that people will write about it one day, but they haven't yet. No secondary sourcing supports the existence of this page and it is a very clear fail of the ten year test. It is also excessive detail for an encyclopaedic article. We should summarise that in prose and link to a source with the detail. This is, essentially, a kind of news reporting. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notional results will ALWAYS be relevant to compare how voters changed preference from 2019 to 2024. Again, I have to point out that a lot of news organizations uses these notional results for this purpose. Thomediter (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ten-year-test argument fails because it is already standard Wikipedia practice to use Thrasher+Rallings notionals from previous boundary reviews when calculating swings. Go to any constituency article and the swing in the 2010 results is the swing from the 2005 notionals- e.g. York Outer (UK Parliament constituency). This is well over ten years ago. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 10 year test asks whether this page, as a subject in its own right, will be relevant in 10 years. A parliamentary constituency article will be relevant in 10 years, and the 2024 general election article will be relevant in 10 years. This article forks out some projections and treats those as a subject in their own right, but they are not independently notable. The projection is of interest to pundits now, but it will only ever be independently notable if secondary sources in the future decide to treat the subject of these notional results, for some reason, separate from the election itself. That looks like the clearest of possible 10YT fails. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list has detailed data which will be used in the election coverage. This page is increasingly important with the upcoming general election. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTDATABASE, regardless of how important the data is. The data is discussed on two other pages and linked to from there for anyone who needs it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those that want to keep this: Are there any more sources? There's two decent enough articles talking about this, but it's marginal at the moment. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaning towards keep, but the article should be linked to those about the 2019 election, rather than the 2024 election. This is essentially an alternative version of the 2019 results. This article is sufficiently notable as it details the results of an election. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand the keep argument that it is an alternative version of the 2019 resuts. In that case it is a redundant fork, which is a WP:BADFORK and should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork that delves into far more detail than Wikipedia should go into for speculation on the next election. Traumnovelle (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's not speculation for the next election- it's an estimate of the results of the past election, which has been reported on by several major news outlets. These results will be generally used by both news organizations and Wikipedia (reflecting that use within reliable sources), for purposes such as reporting swing from 2019 to 2024 results by constituency. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notional election results are not "speculation" as psephology is a precise science. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

>precise results under the new boundaries usually cannot be known as election results are not usually reported for subdivisions of constituencies. However, it is possible to estimate what the election results would have been by extrapolating from local election results for which more granular data is known

Sounds like speculation to me. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our position to speculate on what is considered "speculation", only to follow the practice of reliable sources. Almost all reliable sources treat the Thrasher+Rallings estimates as authoritative election results, for example, a Labour win of Beckenham and Penge in the upcoming election would be reported by the media as "Labour hold" rather than "Labour gain" thanks to Thrasher and Rallings having determined it to be notionally Labour in 2019. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ideally this data would be incorporated into the individual constituency articles, rather than be in a separate list, but as long as this has not been done, it is useful to have these numbers on Wikipedia. The argument that thisis speculation is not sufficient. These numbers are used by pretty much all reliable sources covering the election even if they are only estimates. Gust Justice (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a merge argument? If the information should be on those articles, a merge close would keep the article until the merge has been performed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This list/dataset is useful, but the data are available at reference number 2 in the article: spreadsheet download. I don't think Wikipedia needs to host a mirror of these data (WP:NOTDATABASE). Malinaccier (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2023 Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies. While I understand why we may want to cover this, I just don't see how this sort of thing would be best covered in a standalone article rather than within an article with broader scope. It is important to keep in mind that WP:NOPAGE notes that at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. Those seeking deletion have argued that the topic is purely WP:SPECULATIVE or a form of alternate history, or alternatively that this is an inappropriate CFORK. Those in favor of keeping seem to argue that the data itself is valuable in some way, and should be presented on Wikipedia. I think that the data is valuable in the context of elections, and also that presenting this in its own article is worse than including it in a larger page with more context, such as could be achieved by upmerging this to my proposed target. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I would consider merge an acceptable AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:51, 21 June 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rarri Dream

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

Fails WP:GNG. Can't find any reliable, secondary sources in relation to the subject aside from the Earmilk link, and contains original research with the ASCAP citation. joeyquism (talk page) 04:23, 13 June 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 June 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited this article a couple of times it does include reliable primary and secondary sources though for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 so it passes WP:GNG Firstsail (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) — Firstsail (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , — Firstsail (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Blakegrant1 (talk · contribs). [reply]
The editorial quality of nearly all of these websites is questionable, aside from AllHipHop, which is listen on WP:A/S. Even if they were considered reliable, subject fails WP:SIGCOV, seeing as his name had to be triangulated from ASCAP writer credits. joeyquism (talk page) 15:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I created this article because I am a fan of the artist/ subject he is clearly notable with multiple reliable sources I’ve got multiple other subjects included on to Wikipedia and I’ve never had this problem and if sources like Wonderland (magazine) and Notion (magazine) are not reliable then why do they have their own page and he has releases under indie label The Orchard (company) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakegrant1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blakegrant1 Having a wiki page for a source doesn't necessarily equate to reliability (see Daily Mail). The contact/info pages for both of these sources do not explicitly offer any information on who's writing and fact-checking these pieces, so I cannot reasonably verify them (if you can find names attached to these sources and link a Muckrack page for them, I might consider withdrawing a little bit more). A lot of this article's important biographical content is unsourced, too (birthday and birthplace are notably not given any citations - a tweet from the artist himself would suffice in this case). I would say that the closest things to resembling decent sources are the AllHipHop article and these sources, which both pass WP:ABOUTSELF but ultimately don't count towards notability IMO; otherwise, I don't see anything that qualifies this for a wiki article. I'm sorry about this; if you have any questions or further concerns, let me know and I'll do my best to help you out a bit more. That being said, I'm still leaving this up here. joeyquism (talk page) 02:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG Babysharkboss2 was here!! ^{Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor!} 17:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that this article fails WP:GNG. None of its sources seem reliable. AstridMitch (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2024

Keep: Editors seem to be bias and personal the nom first said that it falls under Fails WP:GNG. Then he said it fails WP:SIGCOV Then he said 2 of the articles were decent sources so i don't get how it doesn't pass WP:GNG if the nom himself said there are some reliabe resources seems undecided, also the nom didn't even transclude this Afd correctly at first — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:960:27F0:2913:E0:D107:656A (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can envision this artist becoming notable at some point, but right now, the sources of significant coverage are simply too sparse. I looked myself and really, the only useful sources are a couple already here; there needs to be more. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:45, 19 June 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!} 06:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSU Tigers football recruiting history

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

The article is pure WP:LISTCRUFT as the topic itself should not be an encyclopedic article. A deletion discussion for a similar article has already passed a year ago and its conclusions are very good. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 04:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, American football, Lists, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article title doesn't make sense and the content is likely not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. Some of the relevant content can be merged into LSU Tigers football. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not pass WP:GNG, is more "fan-related" details than content for this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 19 June 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.

I expected that we would hear from the article creator but no argument to Keep here. Still do to low participation, I have to close this as a Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian colonisation of Khotan

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

Another messy pov ridden and non-notable article (WP:POVFORK) by User:Jonharojjashi, this time relying on legendary stories to Indianize the Kingdom of Khotan, despite the WP:RS in the latter saying something completely else (that they were founded by Sakas). Wouldn't be surprised if Jonharojjashi had misused some of the WP:RS in this article as well, wouldn't be the first time [9]. Heck, Jonharojjashi is even citing William Bayne Fisher here, though has purposefully omitted the part where he states the Kingdom of Khotan was founded by Sakas,^[1] which is mentioned in the Kingdom of Khotan article.

Instead of obsessing over uncorroborated legends and create a whole article out of it, Jonharojjashi should perhaps look into the consensus in WP:RS instead of ignoring it (such as they did to the WP:RS in Kingdom of Khotan), such as this pretty relevant excerpt; "In the version of the Travels, it is the ministers of the son of King Aśoka (ca. 272-31 BCE) who fled India and founded Khotan, where the earth rose in the form of a breast. In the Life (Beal, 1888, p. 203) and in the Tibetan Prophecy of the Li (that is, Khotan) Country (Thomas, pt. 1, pp. 100 f.; Emmerick, 1967, pp. 19-21), it is the banished prince himself who, having been fed by the breast from the earth, later founded the kingdom. Although found in two independent sources, which shows that the story was widespread, it is a legend devised to claim a noble origin of the lineage and should not be confused with historical data (against this see Emmerick, 1979, p. 167; Idem, 1983, p. 263). No colonialization of Khotan by India in the 3rd century BCE is to be considered seriously." This is written by Hiroshi Kumamoto [10], an expert in Khotanese history (eg [11]).

I think this excerpt from Jonharojjashi's report [12] sums it up pretty well; "It seems sufficient that this editor (Jonharojjashi) is habitually citing poor sources, misusing better ones in an OR matter, and PoV-forking at will, all to push a viewpoint that is clearly counter-historical and India-promotional." HistoryofIran (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At best, parts of the contents of the article could be added to an "alternative theories" section on the Kingdom of Khotan article. But as it contradicts reliable sources, it does not merit its own article.

^ Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9. One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, China, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The reference above should be attributed to its author rather than the series editors:
Gabain, A. von (1983). "Irano-Turkish Relations in the Late Sasanian Period". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). The Cambridge History of Iran, vol 3: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanid Periods, Part 1. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. doi:10.1017/CHOL9780521200929.021. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9.
Folly Mox (talk) 04:52, 14 June 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. I'm not convinced that the editors arguing to keep this article have a good understanding of NCORP and what is required. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homa (company)

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

Routine announcements only, not meeting NCORP. BoraVoro (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This topic has been deleted previously. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homa Games. Hitro talk 15:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was created and edited by User:Kevin Wolstenholme who has a self-declared conflict of interest with the article subject. --Mika1h (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satsify WP:GNG for my liking and shouldn't be made by COI editor. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It has coverage from sources that indicate notability - VentureBeat (considered reliable) and Techcrunch (likely reliable in this instance). It may need paring-down, no doubt, as some of the content referenced from less reliable sources may not meed the standard. WmLawson (talk) 00:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey WmLawson, neither the VentureBeat article (regurgitated company announcement on raising funding) nor either of the TechCrunch articles (both regurgitated funding announcements) meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability, or am I missing something? Can you indicate which paragraphs in those articles contain "Independent Content" and I'll take another look, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe there is no need for deletion for this article. It has coverage, and is a relatively notable company, I would not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk • contribs)

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 18 June 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. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxion (electronic musician)

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

Contested PROD. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Greece. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ has an AllMusic staff written bio here and four staff written album reviews here, here, here and here. There is also coverage in XLR8R here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep moving to full keep after a full search which as well as the above mentioned sources found coverage in Exclaim here, Resident Advisor here, The Quitus here, and a Polish source here. I'm not familiar with the Polish source but the other coverage is in reliable sources so I believe WP:GNG is passed so that deletion is unnecessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep – it needs more refs but, given Atlantic306's success at finding some potential additions I'm pursuaded by the artist's discography. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 13 June 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 States of Guernsey#History. Not much to Merge but might be of interest Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral firsts in Guernsey

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to States of Guernsey#History – information is sourced and can reasonably be noted there. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No room for "firsts" because it is trivial. Shankargb (talk) 01:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Morse (California attorney)

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

Not a notable person. Possible WP:BLP1E. I removed some scandalous content which was unsourced, but presumably mentioned in Larry J. Kolb's book. No other sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm unsure if this is the same individual mentioned here in connection with the 1992 riots in LA [13]; regardless, it's a name drop. What's used in the article now is simply a biography of a working lawyer. I don't see notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Law, Massachusetts, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two cites, one of which seems to be significant coverage, but limited to the beating in Mississippi (no kidnapping mentioned). There's also this which I can't find online.

Associated Press (A.P.), “Beating Charged,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson MS), October

22, 1964, p. 16. Oblivy (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is barely verifiable (but not through sources contributing to notability) that the 1960s Stanford Frank Morse had the middle name Patrick [14], that the civil rights activist and beating victim was named Frank Morse and was from California, that Frank Patrick Morse is an attorney based in Beverly Hills [15] and was connected to some of the named companies. I could not verify any connection to UC Irvine (COI: my employer). None of the legal work removed from the article nor any of its material after the 1960s looks to make any case at all for notability. All we have left to base an article on is the civil rights story and a long "where are they now" WP:SYNfest. And I don't think we have enough detail on the civil rights story to rise above WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for inability to meet WP:BASIC, and probably WP:BLP1E as well. I was holding off to see if anyone found more sources, but I agree with @David Eppstein this is really a where-are-they-now article for somebody who even at the time was pretty obscure. Happy to reconsider if more sources are found. Oblivy (talk) 14:01, 13 June 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] Fisher, William Bayne; Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge University Press. p. 614. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9. One branch of the Sakas who founded a kingdom in Khotan (in the Tarim Basin) were zealous Buddhist....

[1]