Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 25	May 27 >

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exformation

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

A gestalt article on three different articles that define this word differently. No substantial independent coverage for any definition. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellbeing Literacy

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

Promotional and created by an SPA account.

Insufficient sourcing independent of Lindsay Oades, a few other scholarly articles exist but none appear substantial enough to re-write this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Health and fitness, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Benn

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sridharan Madhusudhanan

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Marked for notability concerns since 2018. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the biography of the subject. Page about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced is not noteworthy. Fails WP:BIO. RangersRus (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Makase

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I procedural removed the PROD on this to allow more time to search for sourcing, given there were 23 PRODs to look through in less than a 48 hour period, and a simple search was bringing up potential sourcing. However, although there is this and a large number of team announcements, there probably isn't enough here to pass WP:GNG, and no suitable redirect per WP:ATD either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: problem of WP:SIGCOV and slight meeting of WP:SPORTSBIO. I am not convinced of this article being notable but sure it can in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice J. Buah

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Council of State members are not inherently notable and there’s not enough source to establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Ghana. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to India–Malta relations as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Malta, New Delhi

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

Fails WP:ORG. No in-depth third party coverage. Sources 5-9 merely confirm former high commissioners. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Malta. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Poor sources and the page fails to be a stand-alone article without significant coverage in the reliable sources independent of the organization. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to a more normal and neutral topic of "India–Malta relations" like as it has happened to the rest of the standalone articles. While it could also be moved to "Diplomatic missions of Malta", it is least likely proposed. Though a strong proposal of merging is expected higher.

110.235.217.74 (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)— 110.235.217.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corné Weilbach

(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. There's a couple sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's also this along with what we already have, just about worth a weak keep in my opinion currently, especially as a young player who's career is starting to kickoff. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe go back to draft and try to look/add more contet here and then resubmit. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:41, 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!} 22:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Belardo

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's this source on his post playing career, and a few bits on his playing career also, just worth a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Fragnito

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV other than this, which seems like a press release ("The whole company expresses the utmost satisfaction"). JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There's a reasonable source here and a few bits here. Worth a weak keep in my opinion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arab conquest of Kaikan

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

I see no point in keeping this article along with its parent article Umayyad campaigns in India, when there are no sources explicitly covering this event as "Arab conquest of Kaikan", the source cited in the lead for it nowhere mentions this event as the title. Another problem with orginal researched articles is their defined timeline, despite having no source for the hoax timelines the authors of these articles love to furnish their own preferred timeline of one, two or even three centuries. The article topic also seems to lack notability and significant coverage as there are many uncertainty and unknown belligerents. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Isn't this Hilarious that you created urself fake Fictional war articles of Bengali Pala empire (while claim to be Kashmiri) and selecting every fine article for deletion~~ DeepstoneV (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — DeepstoneV (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try. But commenting on me won't work per WP:PA & WP:AADP. Also you should check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohammad Umar Ali, best regards. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is one sided and it doesn't contain neutral pov because the article don't says about the earliest defeat suffered by arabs during their conquest of Kikan. It doesn't show early 3,4 Jat victories, Not a WP:NPOV. पापा जी (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)पापा जी (talk) 04:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. as there is disagreement if this article complies with WP:NLIST. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present)

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; they consists of WP:PRIMARY, announcements, some appears to be rewritten from each other. Most of those are about the game itself, others are dead or redirected pages. Barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because we need to continue edit for September as a Schedule Release Andrei Kenshin (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, I agree with Randy Kryn. These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTSTATS would not apply as the information is explained, and WP:NOTROUTINE covers the nominated articles (which should be combined by the nominator as soon as possible because now editors are commenting) as typical and encyclopedic. Will comment further when I reply to the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bludgeoning. My !vote is final. Conyo14 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bludgeoning? Please strike that, thanks. And countering misinformation is, I think, allowed. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [1], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [2]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me I think we either need to keep all of the results articles or delete them all (which includes TNF, SNF, NFL Network exclusive game series and also NFL on ABC results) since it doesn’t make sense to delete one and not the others, and same reasoning in keeping as well, plus if applicable we need to match the timelines a bit, make a single article just for ABC exclusive years, and another for ESPN years, and a final for ABC/ESPN together, since it doesn’t make sense to break it up every 20 years either Hoopstercat (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Monday Night Football was a notable TV show, looked forward to every week in the era of three or four networks. It was a national event, only the best games were slated for Monday night. And it made stars of its announcers. Then per Walsh90210, who presents a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. as there is disagreement over whether this article complies with WP:NLIST. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)

AfDs for this article:

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; most of those are about the game itself, others consists of WP:PRIMARY, YouTube and dead or redirected pages. Barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that previously, they never go well. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, I agree with Randy Kryn. These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this at another one of these multiple nomination attempts, SpacedFarmer please combine these as everyone who has answered so far has copied their answers to all three noms and we shouldn't have to do that. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bludgeoning. My !vote is final. Also, considering that it is the nom's choice to combine them or not, a procedural close would not be a valid !vote. Let them decide whether they want to do it or not. Conyo14 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: As I have commented, I've tried before but they go disastrously wrong. I cannot see what difference will this makes. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [3], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [4]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Monday Night Football was a notable TV show, looked forward to every week in the era of three or four networks. It was a national event, only the best games were slated for Monday night. And it made stars of its announcers. Then per Walsh90210, who presents a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. as there is disagreement over whether this article complies with WP:NLIST. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (1970–1989)

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; both sources are about the game and nothing to do with the TV coverage or just a mere mention and another is a redirect link; not doing anything to help this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to trim and merge it into Monday Night Football. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, I agree with Randy Kryn. These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [5], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [6]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is pretty good. Are there more from the time period that's mentioned? The 2nd is considered WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be considered primary? A football team is not the broadcaster or the television network, they just run onto the field and play, so I'm missing what's primary about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dallas Cowboys website (owned by the NFL) producing something about themselves would not be independent, thus WP:PRIMARY per their results of the team they play on the field. Conyo14 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Monday Night Football was a notable TV show, looked forward to every week in the era of three or four networks. It was a national event, only the best games were slated for Monday night. And it made stars of its announcers. Then per Walsh90210, who presents a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Samuel Alito. Star Mississippi 16:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Alito flag display controversy

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and can also be covered sufficiently at Samuel Alito. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Christianity, United States of America, New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito. It’s notable when a Supreme Court justice who is hearing cases related to an attempted government coup is flying flags that are well established by news coverage to support that coup in front of his house. Also, the article is well-sourced enough to establish the notability of the topic. But it’s more confusing to wiki visitors to have a separate article for it, because when they come here looking for this, they’re going to be looking for it under his name. This topic belongs under a “controversies” section in the main article. Ruth Bader Yinzburg (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito: I agree that this event is currently notable, but I don't think it passes the 10YT. I think it should be selectively merged to Samuel Alito#Ethical questions without prejudice to potentially creating a controversies sub-article for Alito, since he seems to be racking them up recently. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito I too think this could be contained within a "controversies" section in the main article. --Enos733 (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from how the controversy is affecting Alito's reputation, this event has spawned new analysis of the Pine Tree Flag's use by Christian nationalists, whether political affiliations necessitate recusal, and the practice of blaming evidence of wrongdoing on spouses. While the most recent SCOTUS controversy of Clarence Thomas' nondisclosure of finances is located within the "Personal life" section of his article, financial conflicts of interest are far simpler to summarize than whether particular symbols suggest bias based on their historical and contemporary meanings. Thus, the current format of a minor summary in Alito's article with a "See also" tag to this dedicated article is preferable. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Samuel Alito per rationale of Ruth Bader Yinzburg and voorts. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Rational behind Ruth Bader Yinzburg's comment suggests a title issue. This continues to receive coverage and the contents would not be entirely covered under a section in Alito's article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could '''merge'' it. Althought, it has been on the news a lot, maybe an article about it not all that needed. Cwater1 (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per RBY and voorts. It could become notable as events develop, but at the moment it's better in the main article (actually, I only came here because I was looking for info on this, and the first place I went was the main article). Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Samuel Alito per WP:NOTNEWS. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ooberman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Churney

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage establishing independent notability. It seems that most coverage of the subject is in the context of Ooberman (and to a lesser extent – The Magic Theatre, which is a section of the Ooberman article), a redirect to which would make sense as an alternative to deletion. toweli (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any sourcing for this musician, other than streaming sites. Nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article presents no evidence of independent notability and my searches did not turn up anything. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but an unsourced stint as a grammar-school teacher obviously isn't going to pass notability that way, either. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ooberman. Searching ProQuest, I find multiple articles that mention her or have some short discussion of her, but it's all in the context of being a member of the band. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and the subject is not notable on her own. Contributor892z (talk) 21:04, 2 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 20:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western education (disambiguation)

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

Not a valid disambiguation page, just synonyms of a vague term. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Konanen (talk) 18:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Makes no sense as a disambiguation page. Sadustu Tau (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think wikipedia currently has the articles someone would be looking for if they were searching for western education. I can see what the DAB page creator was going for... education about the west from the east, but a language school and European studies doesn't really fit the bill, and European studies... well, it's about the foundations of western culture, but you can't really say Europe is the entirety of the west but rather a subset of it. And a single school that teaches languages is undue weight. An article about Western Education itself might be useful, contrasting with Confucianism. An article about how information about the west is communicated in the East would be interesting. But I just don't think we cover these things, likely due to the inherent WP:SYSTEMIC bias that comes from being written by volunteers who are, themselves, western (myself included). Fieari (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lindelwe Zungu

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found several trivial mentions but no evidence of significant secondary coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 20:48, 2 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 Zeds Dead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Rapp-Rovan

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

No indication of notability independent of the band Zeds Dead, per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ARTIST. Nearly all of the content (and sources) here is about the band, and the coverage I can find of him in RS is about his work with the band, including some mentions of the art he displays when the band performs. I proposed a merge on 9 March, but that's had no response apart from the article creator. Creator has now removed the merge proposal template from this article, so I've closed the merge proposal at Talk:Zeds Dead, but the problem of notability hasn't been addressed yet. A redirect to Zeds Dead would be fine as an WP:ATD. Wikishovel (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and Canada. Wikishovel (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the merge proposal with any intended malice. I am not sure I can properly promote the necessary "proper notability" other than to say that many entertainers have a duality of creative ability other than the one they are most famous for. Given a little time I will endeavor to find more reliable sources to support retention of his BLP. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never having experienced an AfD, a redirect sounds like it might be a good solution. Before creating the Rapp-Rovan article, I tried to increase the mention of his graffiti art in the Zeds Dead article but was unsatisfied with the result. A separate BLP seemed to be the answer. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 03:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zeds Dead. The majority of this article is on that topic. I don't see the sourcing to support a separate article on this band member's graffiti art. Elspea756 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoraya ter Beek

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

I really don't see the purpose of this article. This was a private individual who chose to die under Netherlands long ago passed euthanasia laws. Her death is unlikely to change anything regarding the Netherlands euthanasia policy, and thus does not pass WP:LASTING. All coverage is about her death and thus is a WP:BLP1E and fails WP:NOTNEWS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Europe, Women and Netherlands. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not her death, but her personal process of advocating euthanasia rights that matters. Victomrya (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (highly selective) into Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Worthy of one sentence there. gidonb (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Euthanasia in the Netherlands per nom. I agree with gidonb that the subject of this article might deserve maybe one sentence in the Euthanasia in the Netherlands article, but there's really nothing of substance to merge. In addition to the WP:NOTNEWS aspect, there are barely any reliable news sources about ter Beek as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E. No article about her in Dutch Wikipedia, and nothing about her in the their article on Euthanasia in the Netherlands. This looks like "news" planted by the "slippery slope" campaigners against assisted dying: the Guardian says "An article about her case, published in April, was picked up by international media" (published where?) and she says herself that that coverage was "had many inaccuracies and misrepresentations ". She died, legally, end of story. PamD 09:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Euthanasia in the Netherlands, article and sources don't show sufficient notability for WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Euthanasia in the Netherlands where she merits a brief mention. Star Mississippi 01:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. Star Mississippi 16:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Hernández-Mats

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

Prod declined. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. She is a teacher and a leader in a local union who was chosen as a major party's nominee for governor's runningmate in 2022. It appears that the Miami Herald wrote up one in-depth piece on her during the campaign and there are other WP:ROUTINE articles relating to the election and the Crist ticket that do not cover her in significant depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage about her as a union leader. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. I reviewed the available coverage and it's either of the Crist campaign or it's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the United Teachers of Dade, quoting her incidentally to her role as president in the process of coverage focusing on other issues (such as the decertification vote or COVID-19). Redirecting connects this page with what most people may be searching for related to her, and it makes it easier to resurrect the page in the future should she be the subject of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article, as of this comment, contains reliable sources for more than just her selection as lieutenant governor candidate in 2022. GNG is satisfied. Zsinj^Talk 23:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional remarks: Arguments for redirect citing the loss of an election do not take into account the published sources that aren’t dated in the fall of 2022. The Axios, WPLG, and CBS Miami sources have sigcov (she isn’t only mentioned once in passing), are independent, and reliable, and they aren’t even related to the election. Then, when you add the numerous articles pertaining to the election, even if the election itself is every four years, she is the main topic and the sources are national, independent, and reliable.

I will respect the consensus, but would really appreciate being educated on the lack of notability given the cited sources. Zsinj^Talk 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those three you mention are independent, yes, but I don't think they are significant coverage. This Axios piece mentions her only in passing. The WPLG source about the arrest is also not in depth. CBS Miami, one is a video I haven't watched, this one is about the union, not her. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate the reply and clarification. This one was curious to me and I enjoy the opportunity to refine my understanding of sigcov. Zsinj^Talk 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that only WPLG could even be considered as sigcov, and that's a stretch given how brief the coverage is. The rest are providing significant coverage of the union she leads, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from the union. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS Miami video is sigcov in my opinion as it’s 10 minutes in duration and she’s one of two primary focuses. Am I misunderstanding the format as it impacts her notability? I have no question about inheriting notability, just seeing sigcov in multiple sources and curious how that isn’t enough for notability. Zsinj^Talk 12:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments for Deletion, to Keep and to Redirect so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's some non-campaign-related coverage of her cited here, but I don't think it's enough to argue she meets GNG. It really just comes down to whether or not you think being interviewed by local news outlets a few times proves that someone is notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate that loses a statewide election in the United States. I agree with Dclemens1971 and Muboshgu about the state of the existing coverage as not meeting our expectations under GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election: Per se. Most of the article centers here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHHB-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; two of the references lead to dead links. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hawaii. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to WNYX-LD. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNXY-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WNYX-LD. WNYX seems to have some sources and common ownership that could be enough to not only justify keeping it from AFD, but the perfect article to merge into. --Danubeball (talk) 23:32, 15 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!} 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJWY-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katokhar, Ambedkar Nagar

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

Found nothing per WP:GEOLAND as no census data and history found. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Place does exist as you can find bank like Union bank of India in this location but no significant coverage can be found in reliable sources for this geographical location to presume it to be notable. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bongofari

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

Apart from lacking sources to reliable sources, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Africa, and Ghana. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. No senior level competition at all. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSKATE Claire 26 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YARP

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

Contested proposed deletion. PROD reasoning was "Appears to fail to have been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources." It was removed with the edit sumarry " sources exist, see talk". Those sources seem fine for verification, but they do nothing to establish notability. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Software. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT/WP:PRODUCT. I couldn't find independent reliable sources that would show notability which includes the sources on the article itself and the talk page. I didn't check each author for each paper, but there are four references on the article's talk page, and three of them are non-independent even without considering the reliability of the publishers: Giorgio Metta of the Sage reference is scientific director of the Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (the same Metta, G. as in the article's references) and Lorenzo Natale of the 2016 Springer reference is a tenured senior scientist at the same institution, which is an institution that develops the program and owns the copyright for some of the material in the program. One of the authors of the 2014 Springer reference is Silvio Traversaro, who is one of the primary maintainers of the program's GitHub. The fourth reference is the Frontiers reference which appears to be independent, though confidence in the publisher isn't high due to considerations like the WikiProject Academic Journals assessment and an RSN disucssion (as well as non-robotics discussions including Public Health, Neurology, Genetics). The last potential reference in the article itself is this, which is not significant coverage. - Aoidh (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Aoidh and JSS above, I can't find reliable secondary sources. The sources that pop up when searching are connected to the project. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:25, 2 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!} 21:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Yotta

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

Not notable, looks like a company portfolio. IgelRM (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Oregon. IgelRM (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, Companies, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete. I'm having a hard time finding non-trivial coverage in news sources. [7][8] (not sure of their reliability, but seem ok for pop culture on a quick glance?) are all I can find. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 07:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can’t find the kind secondary source coverage needed for notability. Contributor892z (talk) 20:51, 2 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 23:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big 12 men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY, some including primary sources are dead links. one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:NLIST due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from IRS. Sources are either press releases, internet forums, or are originating from the competing schools and are WP:PRIMARY. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of SEC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY and dead links besides the YouTube posts, not offering anything to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Sources are press releases, internet forums, and YouTube clips, none of which contribute to notability. Let'srun (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Mausoleum

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. A mausoleum in a cemetery. The only source is the cemetery's grave location website. Note that the creator's user name is also Miles. This is an older article that recently got set for NPP review, I believe due to a name change. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG/WP:NBUILDING C F A 💬 01:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Nirmohgarh (1702)

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

It literally does not has any sources cited in it. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 13:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Encyclopedia of Sikhism mentions a battle at Nirmohgarh, though apparently in 1700 rather than 1702. We don't appear to have an article on Nirmohgarh at all, though clearly it is a place that existed, of some significance. Also mentioned in this book, and here, apparently again at a somewhat earlier date. BD2412 T 14:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete the place may well have existed, there may have been a battle there, but this article does not seem to be about those, and is thus OR. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Slatersteven--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking proper sourcing to be verifiable, Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. A battle may have occurred at this location but sources don't back it being this one at this date. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed the sources in the version before all were removed and I could not verify them. The year and location of the battle is also questionable given from the search by editor BD2412. RangersRus (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meritt North

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actresses or writers. The main notability claim on the table here is that her work exists, which is not automatic grounds for an article -- the notability test doesn't hinge on doing stuff per se, it hinges on the amount of third-party coverage and analysis that has or hasn't been paid to the stuff she did in WP:GNG-worthy sources like media or books.
But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- audiobook narration and writing credits sourced to the works' presence on online bookstores, acting credits sourced to her own self-published acting résumé, volunteer work sourced to the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, and I've already stripped a good half-dozen citations to IMDb on the grounds of IMDb not being a reliable source -- with not a whit of GNG-building coverage about her in reliable sources shown at all.
You don't make a writer notable by sourcing her books to Amazon as evidence that they exist, you make a writer notable by sourcing her books to reviews of the books by professional literary critics in newspapers or magazines as evidence that they got significant attention. You don't make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to IMDb or her own résumé, you make an actress notable by sourcing her acting roles to reviews of the films or television shows that singled her performance out for third-party analysis. And on and so forth.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bearcat,

I appreciate the opportunity to address the concerns raised about the citations supporting the role of Krystle Minkoff as an actress. It is important to ensure that the information on Wikipedia is both accurate and verifiable.

Regarding the citations numbered 12-17, I would like to emphasize that these sources are independently verified and adequately support her credited role as an actress under her given legal name, Krystle Minkoff. These credits are also reflected on IMDb, which follows strict guidelines for crediting individuals in the entertainment industry.

It is important to note that the aim should be to enhance the quality of information on Wikipedia, not to indiscriminately nominate entire articles for deletion due to issues with specific sections or titles. Each piece of information should be evaluated on its own merits and improved where necessary.

There are numerous citations that document her work as an actress, voice actress, and author under both Meritt North and Krystle Minkoff. These sources collectively substantiate her contributions and career, aligning with Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability and notability.

I hope this clarifies the situation, and I am open to working collaboratively to address any specific concerns you may have to ensure the information remains reliable and well-documented.

Best regards,

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is room for improvement or a few items that you absolutely insist must be removed, let's work together to resolve them. I don't think that just because you may take issue with one or a couple items, that the entire page is not useful, informational, and in the public interest.

ScorpioKLM Mooresklm2016 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again: we are not looking for simple verification that she had acting roles. The notability test for an actress is not passed by listing acting roles, it's passed by showing evidence that people without a vested interest in her career (namely journalists and film critics) have assessed her performances as being significant enough to analyze in prose. Such as reviews of the films or television shows which singled her performances out for attention, or journalist-written news articles profiling her. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is not "did stuff", it's "had independent third-party attention and analysis bestowed upon the stuff that she did by people who weren't just being paid to publicize her". So establishing notability as an actress doesn't hinge on her own résumé, or IMDB: it hinges on showing that her work as an actress has made her a subject that journalists cover as newsworthy in sources independent of herself. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there isn't any secondary sources which are good enough to make her notable. OhHaiMark (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Bearcat, how about deleting the title of actress and the acting credits table. Would this suit you? ScorpioKLM

No, that wouldn't "suit" me, because you haven't properly established her notability as a writer or audiobook narrator either. Those work the same way: her notability for either of those things is not established by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and still requires literary critics to establish her books as significant by reviewing them in newspapers, magazines or literary journals.
No matter what occupation a person works in, they always still have to be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about it in reliable sources independent of their own public relations materials, and you simply haven't used any GNG-worthy sourcing to support this article at all. So the problem isn't resolved just by taking acting roles out of the article, because you haven't properly sourced her writing or narration work either. The whole article is badly sourced, not just the acting section alone. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff/Meritt North has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff/North's work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.

However, in order for IMDb to credit officially, it has to be reviewed and approved by IMDb, casting directors, directors, and other actors. It is up for scrutiny by all and goes through a lengthy period of scrutinization before being attributed a final credit. There are 3 titles to which Meritt aka Krystle Minkoff and credited by such, has this blue official IMDb credit. Just a consideration.

Here is the strict incliusion of credits criteria that must be met on IMDb. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10# 
What do you mean by "eligible"? 
A. As stated above, the first and most important thing is to have received a credit on the title. There are a few additional requirements -- we normally only list people who were credited in the original version of a title. For films, this means we'll only list people credited in the initial original theatrical release; for TV titles, it means people credited when the show first aired.

B. When a title is announced or in production and is added to the database, our editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.

C. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM

Bearcat, I respectfully disagree with your statement that we haven't properly established Krystle Minkoff's notability as a writer or audiobook narrator. Let me explain why I believe the proof is in the citations provided:
Multiple Independent Sources: The citations we’ve included are from multiple independent sources, not just self-references or public relations materials. These sources include reputable databases, industry publications, and media outlets that adhere to strict verification standards.
Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received recognition within the industry. While you emphasize the need for literary critics to review her books, the notability can also be established through awards, nominations, and notable projects she has been a part of. These are documented in the citations provided.
Audiobook Narration: The role of an audiobook narrator is inherently significant within the literary and entertainment industries. Notability in this field is often established through the body of work and collaborations with well-known authors and publishers. Minkoff’s work is verifiably documented through these collaborations, which are detailed in the citations.
WP
Compliance: We have adhered to Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines (WP
). The sources used to support her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage about her work. These are not mere mentions but in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and impact.
Proof in Citations: The citations include reviews, interviews, and articles from established media and literary platforms. These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.
Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the verifiable and well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The proof is in the detailed and independent citations that have been meticulously provided to support her notability in these fields.
I believe that a comprehensive evaluation of the sources will reveal that the criteria for notability are indeed met, and Krystle Minkoff's diverse career merits recognition across her various roles.

I highly disagree. Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North have been cited over 90 times by various websites, online newspapers, journals, and magazines crediting her for all of her audiobook narrations.

In addition: When a title on IMDb is announced or in production and is added to the database, thier editors will normally start accepting credits for it. These credits, as per the disclaimer on the page, are always subject to change and can be removed at any time. When the title is actually released (or about to be released) and credits are finalized by the production, our editors routinely compare our listing with the actual on-screen credits and delete any entries that cannot be verified or do not match. If you used to be listed on a title and your credit has disappeared, it means our editors could not verify its accuracy during one of these routine checks.

D. There are 4 credits that have been verified by IMDb.

2017 
Reelz Murder Made Me Famous | 2 Episodes 
Patron & Mother

2017 
John Gotti | Season 3, Episode 8 
Steak House Patron

2017 
David Koresh | Season 3, Episode 7 
Mother

2016 
Queen of the South (TV series) | 4 episodes 
Campaign Supporter

E. The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her significant and well-documented career as a Voice Actress. Here are several key points supporting this stance:

Extensive Experience: Krystle Minkoff has an extensive body of work as a Voice Actress, which inherently falls under the broader category of acting. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to those needed for on-screen acting, such as character development, emotional expression, and vocal control.

Notable Roles: Her roles as a Voice Actress have been notable and influential within the industry. These roles contribute to her overall recognition as an actress, as voice acting is a respected and integral part of the entertainment field.

Published Credits: There are numerous publications and sources that document her work as a Voice Actress. These sources include her credited roles on platforms such as IMDb, which adhere to strict guidelines for verifying the legitimacy of professional credits.

Industry Standards: In the entertainment industry, individuals who perform voice acting are commonly referred to as actors or actresses. This standard industry terminology reflects the comprehensive nature of their work, encompassing all forms of acting, whether it be on-screen or voice-over.

Verifiability and Notability: The information regarding her career as a Voice Actress is verifiable through multiple independent sources, fulfilling Wikipedia’s criteria for notability. This substantiates her professional title as an actress, encompassing her voice acting achievements.

Removing the title of "Actress" would not only undermine her substantial contributions to the field of voice acting but also misrepresent the comprehensive nature of her career. Therefore, it is both accurate and appropriate to maintain the title of "Actress" to reflect her extensive and notable experience in the industry.

Review policy at this URL: https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/filmography-credits/imdb-credit-eligibility-faq/GXMWNMB8LQCZYFH8?ref_=helpart_nav_10#

Kindly review and advise. 
ScorpioKLM

Here is a full list of all of platforms her audiobooks are verified published at and credited to her as both Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. You cannot dispute her notability as an audiobook narrator.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

What part of you do not establish a person's notability by citing her work to itself as proof that it exists, and have to establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT are you having trouble understanding? Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously disregarding all of the media formats, platforms, publications, audiobook production companies, websites, and audiobook resellers citations that prove her notability as an established voice actress. Here are the cites again. I emplore you to review each one.

Cites for Audiobook Narrator: https://www.storytel.com/in/narrators/meritt-north-525444 https://play.google.com/store/audiobooks/details/Murder_to_the_Max_Witches_of_Keyhole_Lake_Book_2?id=AQAAAEBMSh8KQM&hl=en_IN&gl=IN https://www.booktopia.com.au/murder-to-the-max-meritt-north/audiobook/9781987150421.html https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/moonshine-valentine https://tantor.com/narrator/meritt-north.html https://www.audible.com/author/Meritt-North/B01M3YNGSB https://www.audible.com/search?keywords=meritt+North&skip_spell_correction=true&ref_pageloadid=not_applicable&ref=a_search_t3_noResReversionUrl&pf_rd_p=7a98be95-bbf9-496e-a68c-79ce2c792da5&pf_rd_r=W5AQ8S259PFJWH9HB8CB&pageLoadId=rbqvivlTWdN7xXYc&ref_plink=not_applicable&creativeId=85146ce4-11f8-4d13-a628-fae19c79acaa https://www.audiofilemagazine.com/audiobookindustry/meritt-north/ https://www.audiobooks.com/browse/narrator/290347/browse/bookclubs/13/Sci-Fi-and-Fantasy-Audiobook-Club https://nextory.com/se-en/narrator/meritt-north-776316 https://library2go.overdrive.com/library2go-94-111/content/media/4578862 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/jarods-heart-elise-manion/1122395364 https://www.overdrive.com/creators/1811412/tegan-maher https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/moonshine-valentine-tegan-maher/1131877202

https://www.kobo.com/us/en/list/mystery-thriller-audiobooks-9-99-or-less/sIjyvZtfms0HgQjU4Thsmg https://libro.fm/audiobooks/9781987192872-cruise-ship-caper https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/murder-of-the-month-by-tegan-maher https://www.audiobooks.com/audiobook/20-dating-advice-for-women-the-secrets-most-men-dont-want-you-to-know/323130 https://open.spotify.com/show/5sHA37R3rNqqTTCZbKLMyn https://www.storytel.com/tv/books/the-heartsong-cowboy-488808

____________________________________________________ I truly appreciate your dedication to maintaining the high standards of Wikipedia, and I believe the existing citations do indeed establish her notability.

Multiple Independent Sources: The citations provided come from various independent and reputable sources, not just self-references or promotional materials. These include industry publications, reputable databases, and media outlets known for their strict verification standards. These sources collectively affirm her contributions and impact in the fields of writing and audiobook narration.

Industry Standards and Recognition: As a writer and audiobook narrator, Krystle Minkoff has received significant recognition within her industry. Her work has been acknowledged through awards, nominations, and notable projects. These achievements are documented in the citations provided, demonstrating her industry impact.

Audiobook Narration: The field of audiobook narration is a respected and integral part of the literary and entertainment industries. Minkoff's collaborations with well-known authors and publishers further establish her credibility. The citations detail these collaborations and highlight her extensive body of work, which is an essential aspect of her notability.

Compliance with WP

We have adhered to Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines (WP

).

The sources supporting her notability are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage of her work. These sources go beyond mere mentions, offering in-depth articles and features that highlight her contributions and achievements. Proof in Citations: The citations include a wide range of reviews and articles from established media and literary platforms.

These are GNG-worthy sources that validate her achievements and establish her as a notable figure in both writing and audiobook narration.

Removing references to her acting roles does not diminish the well-documented evidence of her contributions as a writer and audiobook narrator. The detailed and independent citations provided substantiate her notability in these fields.

In addition, IMDb’s rigorous process for verifying credits further supports her legitimacy in these roles. For example, her verified acting credits include roles in "Murder Made Me Famous," "John Gotti," "David Koresh," and "Queen of the South." These credits reflect her significant involvement in the industry.

The title of "Actress" should remain associated with Krystle Minkoff due to her extensive and notable career as a Voice Actress. Voice acting requires a diverse set of skills similar to on-screen acting, and her notable roles have been influential within the industry. Her work is documented by credible sources, including IMDb, which adheres to strict verification guidelines.

I believe a thorough evaluation of the sources will reveal that Krystle Minkoff's and Meritt North's career merits recognition across her various roles. Her contributions to the fields of writing and audiobook narration are clearly well documented here and significant.

I invite you to review the comprehensive list of platforms where her audiobooks are verified and credited to her, both as Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North. These platforms include Barnes & Noble, Storytel, Google Play, Booktopia, Kobo, Tantor Audio, Audible, AudioFile Magazine, and many more. Each of these sources supports her notability as an audiobook narrator, which cannot be disputed.

Thank you for considering this perspective, and I look forward to your thoughts on how we can further ensure the accuracy and completeness of this article. Best regards, ScorpioKLM

In response to this "establish notability by citing her work to THIRD-PARTY MEDIA COVERAGE AND ANALYSIS ABOUT IT". I have cited to third-party media coverage and analysis about it. Please re-review the citations sent above.

Kindest Wishes, ScorpioKLM

No, you have not cited third-party media coverage and analysis about it, you're citing her own work's presence as titles for sale in online bookstores. Again: you do not establish a writer's notability by citing her work to its own presence on Amazon or Audible or Kobo or Booktopia or Overdrive; you establish a writer's notability by citing it to journalists and/or literary critics independently reviewing her work in a newspaper, magazine or literary journal. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry, Law, Politics, Medicine, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We can't use literally everything proffered above by ScorpioKLM (online storefront/connexion to subject), and the same rationale applies to almost every source in the article itself, with those that aren't merchants/her publishers being content-free profiles or stuff she wrote under the "Krystle Minkoff" moniker. None of the lot is usable in any way, shape, or form. ScorpioKLM, we don't cite IMDb because multiple discussions over the years in re their verification and fact-checking (i.e. their editorial oversight) have concluded it's a joke. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 15:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is sourced to primary sources. I can find no coverage at all to substantiate inclusion of this biography on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the wall of words, notability is not established. Mccapra (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above, there's statements like "Meritt North had a successful 20-year career in sleep medicine prior to her career in the entertainment industry" - her entertainment career began in 2016 when she would have been 33. One link in her bibliography (Journal of Sleep Disorders & Therapy) is flagged as an unreliable source. Orange sticker (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment I've p-blocked Mooresklm2016 from here & the article to allow discussion to continue uninterrupted. They have made a sufficient case for closer to take it on board when assessing the discussion. Star Mississippi 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per G11. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments - obviously promotional and inadequate third-party coverage. Haruka Amaranth 01:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy the GNG; no SIGCOV RS available. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Along with everyone else I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. WP:GNG isn't met. TarnishedPath^talk 06:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Timbo's Rule 14. "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." (March 2012) — tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse that rule! Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You might have noticed that the article creator has used the names Krystle Minkoff and Meritt North interchangeably so I'm assuming that they are the same person. Looking into previous articles by a similarly named account, User:Mooresklm I came across Draft:Krystle Minkoff which was deleted multiple times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed it was a true name/pseudonym situation (similar to Mary Ann Evans/George Eliot). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the deleted article and Krystle Minkoff's birth name is, surprise! Krystle Lee'Ann Moores. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 2 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan

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

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

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

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 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!} 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermie and Friends

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

Granted that I don't know what reference sources would discuss this Christian animated children's show but I didn't find anything in my online search that wasn't either user-generated content, product-focused (promotion) or sites that allowed users to view episodes. I found no secondary sources or SIGCOV. One site called it an "award-winning" show but I never could locate what that award was. Given the detail of content about the characters, I think this article mainly serves as a nostalgia page for IP editors to write about a series they might have watched when they were younger. Dare I say it? I don't think it is notable or encyclopedic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Christianity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far I've found one review in the Wichita Falls Times Record News: "DVD hangs on wing, prayer and a caterpillar", which has eight brief paragraphs. I'll see if I can find anything else. Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Toughpigs, I'm impressed by your diligence. We have so many articles on marginal children's television series. I guess this one did have some coverage, at least in Wichita. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this UT Daily Beacon review is independent, extensive, and as RS as any college student publication would be. In combination with the above, that would be a notability pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note but not contributing to notability, Tim Conway's obituaries do seem to mention this series (he voiced the main character) among his other clearly more well-known roles. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 11 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!} 07:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: The sources presented above might show this is notable enough. If a redirect target can be found, not opposed to the idea. Needs a bit of trimming.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the reviews listed above, there is also this and this from The Dove Foundation and this from the School Library Journal. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Kanchangarh

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

I don't understand why this page is in the mainspace when the sources provide only one line of information about this topic, "After his successful mission of Adhoni, he annexed Kanchan Garh without any bloodshed." The ongoing issue with poorly documented Indian 'Wars,' 'Sieges,' 'Battles,' and 'Captures' articles needs to be thoroughly reviewed. Based Kashmiri (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH. 3 sources. One is unreliable publisher Xlibris. I cannot verify the source by M.P. Mujeebu Rehman and the last is not written by Abdul Khader but uploaded by him but has no coverage on the Capture significant enough to warrant a full fledged page. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Indian battlebollox. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The arguments to keep are remarkably weak. Only one of them provides any evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and the source therein has been convincingly rebutted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Aurum Solis

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

Seems almost whole primary sources, thus seems to not pass wp:n Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Paranormal. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable secondary sources can be found, in which case the article would, of course, need to be completely rewritten. Brunton (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which still might be best to nuke it for orbit and start from scratch? Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Brunton (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources that would indicate notability outside of the bubble built by a couple of authors. –Austronesier (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~Unsure~~ Weak Keep was thinking delete unless reliable sources can be found for this purported hermetic order. But maybe sources exist. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources exist that are not part of Llewelyn press after review. There are... not many... but they are sufficient not to warrant deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Simonm223: Such as? Here's the relevant Google Scholar search result:[9]. If you can present one or two independent RS among these for evaluation, that would be sufficient as a first step. –Austronesier (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The very first one is a non-Llewellyn book. [10] Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just about "non-Llewellyn". Have a look at the first page of the preview. Do you consider Kraft's book an independent and reliable source? –Austronesier (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an in-universe description of a magical tradition. Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Just if it's notable. I am not suggesting Wikipedia should treat these descriptions as being of actual effects of magical ritual. I am just suggesting this group of magic type people appears to meet the minimum standard for WP:GNG. Barely. Simonm223 (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And can't be used to establish notability. That needs to be done by third-party sources. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't care if it's true. Sure, but Wikipedia cares if it's WP:DUE. That's an essential part of WP:GNG. –Austronesier (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article suffers from poor management and sourcing, but it is not a non-notable organization in its "field," arguably on par with the Ciceros' Golden Dawn order, the now-defunct Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, the Crowleyan A∴A∴/OTO and the (also under-written) Fraternitas Rosae Crucis. It would give an incomplete picture for this org to not have its own page. I'd mentioned this before, but maybe I could give this article a real try at sourcing. As was suggested above, starting from scratch (but without deletion) might be the best option.

AnandaBliss (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its been tagged as needing this for over 10 years. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is because wp:n applies, as does wp:fringe and wp:undue. Throwing out the rubbish is just what AFD is for. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it turns out there are sources, it would be better to restart from scratch given the state of the article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some Google Scholar entries apparently exist. I have not reviewed yet. [11] Unsigned comment by Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with comment. As I write this article claims Ordo Aurum Solis was founded by George Stanton and Charles Kingold, names confirmed here in Encyclopedia.com. However, that encyclopedia doesn't say it was the Christian bishop George Stanton. It likely would have been a blasphemous scandal for him to do such a thing and the alleged founding is not and was never mentioned in bishop Stanton's Wikipedia biography. Stanton and Kingold are called "occultists" in another encyclopedia.com article [12]. KEEP because Ordo Aurum Solis qualifies for an entry in encyclopedia.com. 5Q5|^✉ 12:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I de-Wikified George Stanton as not being the Christian bishop but an occultist. An online search for "George Stanton" occultist confirms this. 5Q5|^✉ 09:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current article is improperly sourced and/or WP:OR, promotional ("The current Grand Master Jean-Louis de Biasi continues to maintain the high moral standards of this tradition") and unsalvageable. If sufficient appropriate sources can ever be found to justify a new article, none of the existing content will be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kid Icarus (series)#Characters. Consensus is the sourcing depth is not there to support a standalone. I will protect the redirect to avoid a 4th AfD, but the suggestion of working on a draft is a good one. It should go thorugh AfC to avoid further issues though as consensus in both 2024 AFDs is strong. Star Mississippi 15:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pit (Kid Icarus)

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was brought back recently, and again I feel the arguments of the previous AfD hold true here. Every new source added- with few exceptions- are either unreliable or a very trivial mention in a review of Uprising. Even using sources from the previous iteration of Pit's article, there still isn't nearly enough for a whole article. I recommend to restore the redirect, since nothing has been proven to state that the discussion's consensus has changed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Kazama16, who revived the article, for thoughts. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect - This was just Merged by pretty strong consensus at an AFD just three months ago, and really should not have been unilaterally restored without some kind of discussion first, which as far as I can see did not happen. But, regardless of that, the current version does not show any greater coverage in reliable sources that was presented or found in the previous discussion. All of the added sources in the reception section are simply reviews and coverage of Kid Icarus: Uprising as a whole, where the few sentences and quotes that specifically talk about Pit as a character are being cherry picked out to give the illusion of significant coverage. Uprising was a notable game that garnered many reviews, but cobbling together a dozen minor sentences of "reception" on the main character in them do not add together to give Pit his own notability separate from that of the games he appears in. Rorshacma (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sources that are used are press releases, ~~listicles~~, or articles about the game not the character. Still the same as the previous AfD. Update. Article still fails notability. Most were just trivia or passing mentions. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Boneless Pizza! Listicles??? where show me sources that cite "Top 10 best video game characters", Top 10 archers in video games" show me where are those sources? please carefully check the article before choosing your decision. Also what about page no 8 and 9 of this book in Portuguese about Pit.[13]] This whole article is about him.[14] and this too [15] (about his supposed design). There might be even more sources that are currently not present in the article, so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest. Kazama16 (talk) 09:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was exaggerating about listicles, but you're just throwing unreliable sources here except the book one which might be bit useful. Pls do not bludgeon the discussion and make any WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to your original assessment, I would say this one is definitely a listicle (and one that isn't even on Pit at that!), so you were not wrong. Rorshacma (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is a mention of Pit in it on 9# Tetris. Quote= How cool is that? Well, it’s even cooler than you think because it’s not only Link; Samus Aran joins him on the cello, Pit plays the violin Kazama16 (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you think "How cool is that? Pit plays the violin" is a valuable commentary to add at the article? 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's about the game he appeared in not reception Kazama16 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he wasn't mentioned in it, I said that he was not the topic of the listicle in question. That sentence you quoted is the very definition of trivial coverage that is a very good example of showing what kind poor sources and cherry picked quotes are having to be used to try to make it look like the character has more coverage than he actually does. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really bludgeoning, they're just defending their reasons for making the article. Regardless, per above, 3 is only dev info, and that can only go so far given the lackluster Reception. The Fwoosh does not seem to be a reliable source. The book source is entirely plot summary from a quick read. None of these seem to be making an impact on notability, and per prior AfDs, searches for sources have historically turned up very little, making the THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument moot. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "so stop being quick for deletion as I suggest" doesn't sound right. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the nominator not you, in a friendly way. Kazama16 (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it still doesn't sound right to say it like that, and I don't think it is in a "friendly way". Sometimes it is really hard to help you, like I already told you before not to work on your Draft:Takeda Takahashi, because that character is not notable, but yet you still persist. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bring my past to this discussion, it has nothing to do with it. Kazama16 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect My prior rationale remains the same. I agree that it should have been discussed before it was restored. Perhaps it's worth pinging the restorer to this discussion to maybe give their opinion? Personally, I would not have taken it to AfD knowing the outcome will be the same, just redirect it. Conyo14 (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was likely going to cause some dispute if I did BLAR it, hence why I chose to AfD it. Additionally, I have already pinged the restorer, and they are actively participating in the discussion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I had drafted my response before seeing the restorer's active discussion Conyo14 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I think the article needs clean up and a trim to focus on best sources, from a search I'm left with a sense of sufficient coverage, beyond trivial mentions in a game review, of Pit as a multimedia character not reducible to a Kid Icarus redirect (perhaps only just, but even so). Participants in the discussion may already be aware of this IGN article which covers Pit across several media appearances outside Kid Icarus. In addition to that, I found this Bleeding Cool article reporting on and assessing a Pit figurine. And the first chapter of this academic book from Bloomsbury Publishing includes coverage of the Pit character in the Kid Icarus franchise. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A figurine/merchandise doesn't help WP:GNG; thus the article is still in a weak state. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has not been checked properly; the nominator has only looked over the reception section without checking the further reading section and assumed that it is not notable per the other two previous AFDS. Kazama16 (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking evidence that the nominator has not done that, I must say that as someone who has, it would not have caused me to change my mind about nominating it. All of the further reading section is either WP:ROUTINE articles coming about due to Uprising's announcement or an interesting but unreliable student article for a student magazine. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for missing that, most video game character articles lack significant external reading sections, and additionally, those with them typically cite the articles in the Reception. In any case, per Cukie Gherkin above, I see no real significant coverage on Pit as a character in here. One is a review of an action figure unrelated to Pit's character, and the majority of the others are routine Kid Icarus Uprising coverage. The Writer's Block Magazine source looks decent, but I am unfamiliar with their reliability. In any case, one good source out of a swamp of them isn't really enough to justify Pit as an article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see much commentary in the IGN article. It seems more to be a summary of Pit's appearances, and any commentary that could be taken out of it is cherry picking. The Siliconera article is less about Pit and more about the make of a figurine than anything. The book source seems to be more about the Kid Icarus game itself being compared to the game Athena. Anything relating to Pit is in regards to his character is just plot summary, though correct me if I've missed anything. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the book source, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. On the Siliconera article, the article is about a figurine—of Pit. This isn't about figurines generally; it's about content pertaining to this character that would probably be undue in Kid Icarus but are relevant to understanding to the character Pit as promoted by the company and consumed by audiences. As for the IGN article, it seems we disagree with how to read and regard the source. Related to the book and IGN article, I'll add that I don't see where in WP:SIGCOV coverage that summarizes is prohibited. A Wikipedia article shouldn't be purely summary, but that doesn't necessarily mean a source isn't significant coverage if it is providing summarization. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Nothing against articles getting revived, but this is still in the same place it was from the last AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source analysis While Odyssey may have "paid editorial website", I strongly believe anyone looking at the source used is going to quickly realize that is not a valid analysis of the character. We reject Forbes contributor articles from Paul Tassi and Erik Kain for less. And I feel like that's a recurring problem going on with the sourcing here, a hope that people are not actually looking at *what* the sources are saying and instead simply hoping they'll be enough. I mean no offense to Ms. Malbera, but is this genuinely the level of content we feel is appropriate for an encyclopedia? Going further, this is not a character analysis from The Gamer. It's a statement of traits to try and work into the context of Dungeons and Dragons. If there was additional commentary here on his character I could see it, but that's not the case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. On Talk:Pit (Kid Icarus) I did a rundown of all the references in the Critical Reception section (since it seems like the most problematic section at a glance), and that article is not the quality I'd expect from a reliable source. –LilacMouse (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I see you edited while I was writing. I mean specifically Ms. Malbera's article. I haven't looked at the D&D one. –LilacMouse (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect I get the feeling the user who revived the article does not "get" what significant coverage is. Sheer amount of sources will not rescue an article, quality over quantity is needed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I mostly agree with Pokelego but not with the IGN article as not having "significant coverage," it's definitely useful and mostly about Pit. Although if you are assuming that it is not, that's all on you, sorry to say. This is about his prototype design, along with a YouTube video given by Game Informer (I don't know if it's reliable to you or not) after the 7:15 mark. It's mostly about adult Pit and his design. Nintendo Life (which may be unreliable to all of you) also covered this information in their article [16]. If the decision is still "restore redirect," I'm happily fine with the limited information being merged into Kid Icarus (series). Kazama16 (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see some decent reception in there, with Ars Technica, The Odyssey Online and Wired being the best sources, IMO. And the IGN source Hydrangeans provided is a good one too. It's not the best, but I don't think it warrants a re-merge either. MoonJet (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm going to have to ask you to point out specifically what reception on Pit in the Ars Technica and Wired articles you are considering to be decent, because both of those are ones that I am seeing very little discussion about Pit as a character, no more than a sentence or two. For example, with the Wired article, the only discussion I am really seeing about Pit that isn't just stating the premise of Uprising is the writer being annoyed that a friend of his wasn't cast as the voice actor as planned. Rorshacma (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to pretend I know enough about Wikipedia policies yet (yes, hello, I know my account is like 2 hours old) to say whether this page has an excessive amount of detail that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia, though I think it might. But I can say I looked at that Critical Reception section, saw it was a wall of text, and decided to try something.

Here's my sandbox, with the Critical Reception section edited so each reference is its own paragraph. Not only does it now take up half again as much space as the wall-of-text version, it and its references combined look like it's nearly half of the entire article.

Again, I'm new to Wikipedia, but this kind of looks like WP:OVERCITEing in the pursuit of proving notability? Possibly a WP:REFBOMB, if discussion above about how the references aren't really about Pit specifically is correct, but I've only copyedited the section, not looked at the references themselves. I hope having the Reception section separated into paragraphs makes it easier for other people to check the refs. -LilacMouse (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied paragraph spacing to the main article. –LilacMouse (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the claims that have been made here by @Kazama16:, @Hydrangeans:, and @MoonJet:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Odyssey_(website) says that it has proper paid editor oversight, and is thus a reliable source. The article found by MoonJet does give significant cover to the character, their backstory in the game, the mythological character they are based on, and the writer's personal feelings about them, mentioning aspects of their character that make him desirable. https://www.ign.com/articles/2011/01/27/you-dont-know-kid-icarus of course I mentioned last time, that giving quite a lot of coverage of the character. I still say that https://www.thegamer.com/how-to-build-pit-kid-icarus-dungeons-dragons-dnd/ is significant coverage of the character as well, for any who read through that entire article. Character so notable you get significant coverage in a reliable source of their figurines. https://bleedingcool.com/collectibles/good-smile-company-kid-icarus-pit-dark-pit/ Enough valid content to fill its own article. Dream Focus 06:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @LilacMouse has trimmed the Reception down to just sources talking about Pit, which can be viewed on the current edit of the article (The previous edit with all of the sources can be found here) I will note that this does not include the Odyssey source, which seems reliable and in-depth, and includes Goomba Stomp and The Fwoosh, which to my knowledge are unreliable sources. Even then, with only two really good sources holding up Reception, this article isn't meeting WP:THREE, which I know is considered a threshold by many editors. Many of the other sources suggested in this discussion have been debunked for one reason or another, and even if a third source is found, it's been proven by these discussions that Pit lacks a lot of critical commentary, meaning he would quite literally only have three sources, which, in this hypothetical scenario, does not guarantee enough for a split from the parent article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to keep the Odyssey source because the website looks like it's mostly UGC, which per WP:UGC is "generally unacceptable". This page specifically reads like a blog post, not reliable coverage. Honestly, Odyssey looks like a content farm to me.

I don't think I removed any of the sources when I added paragraph spacing, so here's my edit just before I pruned the section: here –LilacMouse (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, had no idea that Odyssey was UGC. Thank you for pointing that out. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The sources added are by and large low-quality or not a show of notability. As far as the sources mentioned by Dream Focus go, I question their judgment when they are arguing that a WP:ROUTINE news piece about figure release is a show of notability or significance. Articles about figure releases are very common, there is nothing exceptional about this. The D&D source is also quite tenuous, being a part of many articles, which doesn't come off as an exceptional source. It doesn't help that the article is from a source said to not be usable to demonstrate notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To the AfD closer right here. Most of the keep votes are using the Odyssey source as their argument, but it is claimed to be a WP:UGC per above. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment Procedurally, I would normally revert this type of anti-consensus change, and restore the redirect. But this source from Dream Focus has a lot of potential [17]. It's an article entirely about the character, and not a mention or gameguide style reference. We'd need someone to actually include some of the reception in the final section. We'd also need more sources than this. But I am open to the idea that good sources exist, and this article can be edited to meet minimum standards of quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be primarily plot summary and conception info more than Reception. It's not a bad source but for the purposes of Reception there's very little. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that reception is not only way to help notability. It's the best way, particularly when it comes to characters, but not the only way. Conception is another good way to help notability. MoonJet (talk) 04:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like after three attempts, and even my own attempts at looking for sources, that IGN reference is an outlier sadly. That may change over time as more retrospectives happen but for the current state there just doesn't seem to be the sources to support the hypothesis that more exist.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:44, 24 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!} 09:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Honestly, as someone deeply into fandom, I don't think Wikipedia really needs articles on most fictional characters when fandom-specific wikis exist. The people who most care about Pit as separate from the games he appears in will probably go to a fandom-specific wiki.

Maybe this is just a me thing, but here's an example of my thinking: I'm a fan of Mass Effect and Dragon Age. I think it's really neat that Commander Shepard and Hawke (Dragon Age) are notable enough to get Wikipedia articles. As far as I can tell, they're notable because people talk a lot about them as characters, and they've been influential as characters to video game creation and discussion.

Pit (Kid Icarus)... isn't anywhere close to that influential. Kid Icarus is a small game series in terms of the attention it gets, and as much as I might love Pit (Okay. Mostly my sister loves Pit. I've learned about Kid Icarus out of self-preservation.), I haven't seen any proof in this discussion that he's sufficiently notable separately from the things he's appeared in.

I think, if someone (@Kazama16:? since you revived the article?) wants to continue to make the case that Pit deserves an article of his own, the thing to do is to clone the article into their userspace and keep working on it from there. –LilacMouse (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV#Telefilms. Star Mississippi 15:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ki Chandni

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Telefilms: is mentioned there. There are currently SO MANY Pakistan-related ongoing Afds including a lot concerning films or series that I would like to suggest redirects for all them, including potential future ones. I am therefore inviting future nominators of such pages to consider redirects, in the future, for the pages they find non-notable, without initiating AfDs, whenever they think redirects could be appropriate and if that seems possible. It is almost impossible for interested and willing users to verify and improve all of them at the same time, and even to take the time to check sources and content in order to !vote. This might become an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I don't mind redirects, but the problem is the page keeps getting recreated. I have seen that if we revert and redirect, it turns into an edit war. It's better to just delete the page. If the subject is notable, someone can always create a draft and submit it for the main namespace. I know redirects are "cheap," but they're WP:COSTLY too and lead to unwanted edit wars. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It is as easy to ask for page protection of the Redirected page through the rpp script as it is to XFd/PROD/tag a page for notability via TWINKLE, if potential (or real) edit war is really you concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 19 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!} 09:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Long format/Soaps. Star Mississippi 15:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kab Mere Kehlaoge

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG. Sources are show listings and a nomination for a non-notable award. S0091 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Long_format/Soaps -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seep (TV series)

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khuwabzaadi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munkir (TV series)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aliya Bukhari#Dramas. Star Mississippi 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aadat

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aliya_Bukhari#Dramas: listed there (just added it) (WRITER) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark. This time, though, I'm adding the observation that I'm already tired of my own copy/paste and wish we'd noticed this the day these nominations were made to consider speedy close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla, But what's wrong with nomination reason being the same? And I'm aware of the backlog, so I've stopped from making nominations for quite some time. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting the nominating rationale over and over gives the impression that the nominator is not studying each article on its own merit well before putting it on the chopping block. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla, I understand your concerns, but that's not the case. I'm fully aware of the potential negative consequences of intentionally making such disruptive nominations. My nominations are legit. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [18] i am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Why a series broadcasted in 2017 need nomination discussion now as many Pakistani websites remove old coverage from their websites and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. Libraa2019 (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. And if you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Babar Javed#Filmography. Star Mississippi 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Ke Moti

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this etc. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Babar_Javed#Filmography: (producer, listed there) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination i guess. I am doubting whether WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many websites remove old coverage. It received some mentions as one can see here [19] Libraa2019 (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. If you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main Gunehgar Nahi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination i guess. I am doubting whether WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion now and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [20] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. And if you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Angeline Malik#As a director. Star Mississippi 15:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sasural Ke Rang Anokhay

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angeline_Malik#As_a_director: creator+director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:TVSeries, broadcasted in Pakistan on Hum TV as Sasural Ke Rang Anokhay and in India on Zee Zindagi as Yeh Sasuraal Bemisaal. A series broadcasted in 2012 is likely notable as most of the Pakistani newspapers remove that much old coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Please avoid WP:ATA and provide coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. Also - WP:TVSeries is an essay, not even a guideline. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not necessary to reply every comment & editor who oppose your views. The history at mutiple AFD's indicates that i provide sources and you reject them [21] so please leave some things to others. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Libraa2019, You've consistently voted to keep based on ROTM coverage, Trivial mention as well as unreliable sources, so it's crucial to counter your argument. And just because an AFD closed in your favor doesn't mean my nomination wasn't legit. Don't forget, several of my AFDs were closed as deleted despite having keep votes, including yours.So let's set that aside and focus on discussing this AFD. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - No i only voted to Keep which are initiated by you as you copy pasted the same rationale for almost dozens of nomination. Right now, many AFD's are live [22] but i have not voted Keep because other editors do research before initiated AFD's but i am doubting such research is done at your side or not. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:07, 1 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 Syed Ahmed Kamran. Star Mississippi 15:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehryar Shehzadi

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Syed_Ahmed_Kamran: director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not as received some coverage [23] and mention [24]. The series broadcasted in 2012 is likely notable considering these sources as most of the Pakistani newspapers remove that much old coverage. I am doubting why a series broadcasted in 2012 need nomination discussion after more than a decade. Libraa2019 (talk)

But this coverage by Dawn and this coverage by Daily Pakistan s merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and are insufficient for WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV#Drama series as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kissey Apna Kahein

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first source is a brief mention, second appears to be a listing (upcoming shows) and Pakistan.web is a forum so not RS, S0091 (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: listed there (different sp.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i am doubting WP:Before done or not. Series broadcasted in two different networks, as Kisay Apna Kahain at ARY Digital and as Badaltay Rishtay at Zee Zindagi [25], [26][27]. The series broadcasted in 2014 is likely notable considering these sources as most of the Pakistani newspapers remove that much old coverage. I am unable to understand why multiple serials broadcasted in 2013,14 need nomination discussion after almost a decade. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Could you offer evidence that Kissey Apna Kahein is AKA Badaltay Rishtay? Meanwhile I'd like to evaluate provided coverage. This coverage by Friday Times and this coverage by Daily Pakistan is merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and are insufficient for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fahad Mustafa#Selected television as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Hamrahi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fahad_Mustafa#Selected_television: producer -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Amin Iqbal#Television as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Muhallay Ki Haveli

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amin_Iqbal#Television: director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination i guess. I am doubting whether WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion after more than a decade, and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [28] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. And if you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV#Anthology series as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shareek-e-Hayat

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Anthology_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion after more than a decade and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be nominated and removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [29] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. If you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Drama serials as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehr-e-Ajnabi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion after more than a decade, and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [30]. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Again - This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. If you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tamasha (TV series) as a viable ATD with no indication input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamasha season 2

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

Tamasha Season 2 hasn't received coverage that should satisfy GNG. The only coverage I found are ROTM - all from same publication - like this, this, and this one. Not enough because Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. and provided coverage is without bylines. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tamasha (TV series) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Goa University#Recognised institutions. Star Mississippi 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MES College

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

Does not meet WP:NORG. The only source is from the college's LinkedIn page, and I found no press coverage online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Goa. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Doesn't warrant its own page since it doesn't meet GNG. Can be included in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_University#Recognised_institutions Wikilover3509 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goa University#Recognised institutions as an ATD. The college by itself doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:40, 19 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!} 09:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doña Lourdes Institute of Technology

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

Private school that does not appear notable due to lack of reliable sources. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable ref hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Alternatively, redirect to General_Santos#Education per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:39, 20 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!} 09:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Hýll

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

This AfD may be the same issue as with Kristína Panáková AfD back in November 2023, except it's about a former men's footballer. He has played hundred of career games in total and even appeared for his national team, but fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage. I'm struggling to find enough sufficient sources as this article has been written terribly with possible dubious stories for years, so does corresponding Slovak Wikipedia, which would help copy over English article otherwise (I already checked and translated it). Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the problem here. He played on a reasonably high level for many years, and the multitude of sources clearly chronicle what he achieved during his career, which was far from negligible. Dubious stories are subject to cleanup and not a matter for AFD. Geschichte (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't understand Slovak to give an opinion, and the article in English is the best developed in relation to cs and sk, but the athlete appears to have good coverage in the local media. Svartner (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you once tried translating the corresponding article for such footballers? I found a lot of them to be far well-written from English article. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly needs additional cleanup and sources, but six international caps, high level football suggests there is far more to add. Govvy (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources and a strong claim to notability. Giant Snowman 10:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Clearly meets WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Bhatner fort (1398)

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

Yet another article with poor sources that fails verification, this article seems to rely heavily on WP:POVFORK & WP:SYNTH. The infobox mentions that Dul Chand fought for Delhi sultanate however the Siege section mentions him as a ruler/king of a different kingdom and it has no mention of Delhi sultanate. Moreover there are no cited sources mentioning the event as Sack of Bhatner fort (1398). Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 07:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this tidal wave of rubbish really is exhausting. Mccapra (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDEV-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVDO-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to University of Kansas#Media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUJH-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of Kansas#Media. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Kansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Kansas#Media: a remnant of the considerably looser inclusion standards of 2006, the brief mention there is probably all we really need in 2024, and a redirect is a valid enough alternative to deletion. (The sourcing is too scant to merit actually merging anything.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 26 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!} 06:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJIB-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to WVXF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEON-LP

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

Notable only on local level, Fox affiliation notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WVXF: it is mentioned there as the predecessor of WVXF's Fox subchannel, which might be enough to make it a valid alternative to deletion. (It does seem odd to think of a Fox affiliate as "not independently notable", but this appears to be one of those rare cases.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 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!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sambalpur

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

One more article which lacks significant coverage and the sources don't go beyond mentioning some scattered lines that "Visaladeva, the tenth descendant of this line, was killed by a Muslim ruler of Delhi." There's no Battle of Sambalpur ever occurred per source. It's clearly a WP:HOAX article. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Odisha. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wars of the Deccan Sultanates

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

Yet another article appears to cover a series of conflicts spanning over a century, which have been amalgamated into many 'wars.' The only source Jaques Tony cited for this title and its prolonged duration does not support the timeline mentioned in the lead and infobox (note that timeline in lead and infobox aren't aligned). This discrepancy creates confusion and suggests a lack of notability. Additionally, the article seems to rely heavily on WP:SYNTH and WP:POVFORK, which is concerning. I hope we don't get to see another non notable 'wars' article spanning centuries or even millennia. Based Kashmiri (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Karnataka, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused as to why this article has been nominated for deletion. The article adheres to Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. The nominator mentioned WP:SYNTH, so they should identify all the self-published sources and unreliable citations in the article that they believe should be removed.Please all those sources here so that we can talk on that easily.

Additionally, the nominator has raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the names and timelines of the wars mentioned in the article.I have already provided a citation for the nomenclature used in the article's headings.Since the article is heavily reliant on multiple sources, it should include references for the commencement and conclusion of the war, forming the timeline of the conflict.Here I have already cited the sources for the timeline too.I can cite the source with quotation to get easily identify the timeline.

Suggestion:-Nominator as well as the reviewers must thoroughly check all the sources.If there is any problem regarding any reference or source or any paragraph requires more Citation,you may assist by adding tags of ^{[citation needed]} for further editing.

~~Please refer the source "History of the Qutb Shahi Dynasty" authored by H.K. Sherwani.-This source have mentioned the~~ Kemilliogolgi (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies and no you haven't cited any source for this fictional timeline of nearly 200 years simply because there's no source defining such a prolonged timeline. Jaques Tony's source is not enough. You have clearly mixed up every war and conflict between Vijaynagar empire and Deccan sultanates without providing enough sources for its notability and timeline. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which Wikipedia policies the article is not adhering to. If there are concerns about the timeline, I can provide specific sources with quotations to demonstrate that the article is accurately written, including the correct timeline for the wars. All sources used in the article are non-fiction.

~~Here i am giving a few sources :~~

(A)Article mentioned about a war-Cited by

1)Wars of the Deccan Sultanates:[31]pg.XXXIV

2)The end of the Vijayanagar Empire did not, however, mean an end to the wars, for Bijapur and Golconda now began to dispute the division of the spoils.

(B)Doubts regarding the timeline-

1)Tony Jaques mentioned the last battle as battle of talikota 1565,[32]

2)But the war lasted even after 1565- Untill 1673-final conquest[33]pg.33
The final conquest:

In 1672, Abul Hasan Qutb Shah, the last of the Golconda Sultans, ascended the throne. The following year saw the resumption of hostilities between Madurai and Thanjavur. Thanjavur was invaded once again in 1673, and was finally defeated, and the Nayak, Vijayaraghava, was killed[34]pg.33

Note:Vassals are also included in war [35]pg.XV

I hope the nominator will recheck the all sources and will mention all the self published sources cited in the article.As he had referred to WP:SYNTH to give an excuse for the deletion of the article.

If any further doubts-feel free to ask.

~~Regards!!!~~ Kemilliogolgi (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one source would be enough for the title. No other source other than Jaques Tony calls it "Wars of the Deccan sultanates", that too gives only the timeline of 1520-1565. I still don't get how come you create an article of nearly 200 years war article. And then you cited this source which contradicts other sources and nowhere this source supports your preferred timeline of 1495-1673. You're just cherry picking info from different sources which is what we call WP:SYNTH. Moreover you're quoting a different conflict from the same source which is not even related to the Vijaynagar empire. It's just a synth mess. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 10:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article contains many misinformation and not neutral at all. Recently I removed misleading info which is not even in the source.Theophilusbisio (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theophilusbisio I have reverted your edits to the last version of Kemilliogolgi. Please don't remove any content while the deletion discussion is ongoing. Regards. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 11:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here about our policies and guidelines.

It doesn't matter if the article is inaccurate or not neutral. Or a complete mess. That is because deletion is not cleanup. If an article can be improved through normal editing, simply fix it.
The nominator and the reviewers at Articles for deletion do not have to check the sources. If you want that, put the article up for Peer Review.
"Cherry picking info from different sources" is not what we call WP:SYNTH. Synth is when you combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
If an article is WP:POVFORK, then the nominator should specify what article it is forked from.

Given that the deletion criteria are unsupported, the article is going to be kept. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:25, 25 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!} 06:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Created and substantially edited by sockpuppets [36][37] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely meaningful creation of a sock. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Chittorgarh (1544)

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

The article lacks general notability, as there are no cited sources specifically mentioning the Siege of Chittorgarh (1544) or providing significant coverage of this conflict. Instead, it focuses more on unrelated events such as the other conquests of Sher Shah and the Battle of Harmoda (1557). While some sources briefly mention Sher Shah's attention towards Mewar in 1544, there is no substantial coverage of a proper siege of Chittorgarh in these sources. Based Kashmiri (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, India, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello!~~

Here are a few sources mentioning the SIEGE OF CHITTOR 1544 A.D.

As the nominator mentioned:The sources regarding the title/heading of article will be:-

Quotation:-1544 A.D. by offering his nominal submission to Shershah the Maharana averted a siege of Chittor.[38]pg.169

I hope nominator have examined the article thoroughly and than questioned about its context?

I have attached around 14 sources for the article completely dealing with the context of the article completely

For further assistance I am attaching a few more sources so that nominator can easily get the context.

[39] Pg.181 [40] Pg.A53 [41] Pg-529 [42] Pg.76 [43] This article neither contains any unreliable source nor dealing with any unrelated topics.Battle of Harmoda,As mentioned above is completely related to the topic.The commander Haji khan and Shams khan were left by Sher shah to face the Udai singh that must be mentioned and the aftermath should also being mentioned. Kemilliogolgi (talk) 06:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only cited this source [44] after the AfD nomination which has again no significant coverage. How can you create an article which has only 2-3 lines of mentions? Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 08:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited after the afd nomination clearly identifies the article by its given name, showing that it is not based on original research. Additionally, there are 14 more sources provided in the article that offer a comprehensive description of the topic. These sources thoroughly support each paragraph within the article, indicating that it is not lacking in citations or referencing. It is recommended that a thorough review of all the sources in the article be conducted before determining whether it should be nominated for deletion. It is important to ensure that all sources are properly cited and referenced before reaching a final decision. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources)

Note:-Before making a decision on whether to nominate the article for deletion, it is imperative that the nominator conducts a thorough review of all the sources to ensure they are accurately cited. It is also recommended to address any citation deficiencies on the article's talk page before proceeding with any deletion nominations. Only after confirming that the sources are properly cited and referenced should a decision be made regarding the article's deletion. (tags: citation needed, unreliable sources) Kemilliogolgi (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC) — Kemilliogolgi (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AdityaNakul (talk · contribs). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an AI generated reply. Anyways, the event is not significantly covered in the sources. This can be seen in The siege section, which starts with: When Sher Shah Suri was within a mere distance of 12 Kos from Chittor, Udai Singh II made the decision to surrender the fort without engaging in a direct confrontation. This is not what we call WP:SIGCOV. There's no significant engagement, so we can't carve out an article which only has 2-3 lines of non-engagement "Siege of Chittor". And I have checked and thoroughly reviewed the sources, out of 14 only 3 deals with this meagre siege and the rest focuses on other unrelated events. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 17:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two dramatically different interpretations of this article, we need more participants here to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: please note the struck sockpuppet comments above. This is probably a soft delete for lack of good-faith participation, but another 7 days won't hurt. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete article created and substantially edited by a sockpuppet uncovered here Ratnahastin (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several other editors have made significant contributions to the article, including yourself. It is not eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, i've struck my !vote Ratnahastin (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are very poor in coverage. I could not find anything more indepth on "Siege of Chittorgarh" in sources on the page. A snippet used for siege segment says that "Suri after winning Jodhpur headed for Chittor and without any resistance Udai Singh chose to send the keys". This is not enough to warrant a full fledged article on the siege. This brief segment can be merged to List_of_battles_in_Rajasthan#16th_Century. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati

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

BLP of a religious leader lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There may be sources in other languages, in which case it would be good if someone could add them. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Avimukteshwaranand is the current head (shankaracharya) of Jyotir Math monastery (matha). His views/ events are covered in newspapers/ TV ABP News [45], Navbharat Times [46], Dainik Bhaskar [47], Economic Times [48], Amar Ujala [49], The Statesman [50], Dainik Jagran [51]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Poor sources. Current page fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV but the religious person who is the topic of the page has managed to be worthy of notice by making unusual controversies to deserve attention. Sources can be found on the issues and controversies and I am going to lean to Draftify this page for improvement. RangersRus (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I’d support that. There’s a job to do in sorting out the sources to base the article on what’s genuinely independent and reliable. Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: Particularly per above. The article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV but I am sure especially at being a disciple of Hinduism. There should be more work here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election

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

Slightly more extensive than 2012 Scottsdale mayoral election. Still probably falls under WP:MILL. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable.

-Samoht27 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a particularly notable election (no non-local coverage, so WP:MILL), and only sourced to election results - fails GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 19 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!} 04:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It stands alone as the only Scottsdale mayoral election listed in Wikipedia. You should also delete the categories only associated with it and not other elections - Category:Mayoral elections in Scottsdale, Arizona and Category:Government of Scottsdale, Arizona — Maile (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precision cut liver slices

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

Yet another subarticle of Precision cut tissue slices, created by a now-blocked paid editor for a company in the industry. There's a minimal history; not sure if it's too detailed for Wikipedia or would want to be merged into Histology or something. -- Beland (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to precision cut tissue slices; see my comments below. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Precision cut tissue slices was deleted through an AFD, do you have another suggested Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The creator is indeffed for undisclosed paid editing. — Maile (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precision cut kidney slices

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

Like precision cut tissue slices, this appears to have been created by a now-blocked paid editor, and is of uneven quality. Precision cut lung slices was created at the same time, but seems more informative. (I mention it in case someone wants to nominate it as well.) -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the articles you mentioned read like college essays. There are brief references to some real publications, but no backing for other statements. It's all loaded with WP:OR. If anything, make precision cut tissue slices the main article, then merge the remaining to that. Otherwise, this probably could have been Speedy deleted? Conyo14 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to precision cut tissue slices and trim that article down to remove all the lab cruft. All of these articles could be merged into a single article shorter than this one with no loss of useful content. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Precision cut tissue slices has been deleted. Do you see another potential Merge topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The creator is indeffed for undisclosed paid editing. — Maile (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WebGain

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

No sources found that make this topic meet for notability. 日期20220626 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am also not seeing any coverage on this company.Hkkingg (talk) 23:07, 1 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!} 03:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwadunsin Oyekan

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

Non-notable clergy person and musician. There is nothing in this article that satisfies musical notability or general notability. The one reference says that he exists. Existence != Notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Nigeria. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this is a recreation of salted Dunsin Oyekan, deleted in 2020 following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunsin Oyekan and recreated twice there. Draft by same article creator declined yesterday and today at Draft:Oluwadunsin Oyekan. Wikishovel (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note The article's main author is the sock of an account blocked for UPE. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, fails WP:MUSICBIO. Looking at the May 2021 version of Dunsin Oyekan, all that's changed is he was in a car accident, released a new album, and was nominated for (but did not win) the "Gospel Touch Music Awards", an award of unclear notability and no significant coverage in RS. Most of the sources cited (e.g. for his concert in Canada) read like paid placement, and the few RS cited are interviews, not WP:SECONDARY sources. Wikishovel (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN. Awards are considered for WP:ANYBIO not for nomination except in multiple years. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:53, 1 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!} 03:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Udutu

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

Reads promo-y currently and I'm not turning up any RS coverage. Some mentions in books that list software, and it looks like its won some minor awards. ~Bluecrystal004^{(talk · contribs)} 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Internet, and Software. ~Bluecrystal004^{(talk · contribs)} 03:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. The article itself reads like a company brochure, most of the references are stright-up PR and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Estrella TV affiliates#Owned-and-operated stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WESV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Estrella TV affiliates#Owned-and-operated stations: there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any local content or anything else that would generate any significant coverage (and its pre-Estrella history was as a TBN repeater that, under today's standards, would be even less likely to be notable). A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2010; an {{R to list entry}} is all that's needed in 2024. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Rocket from the Crypt. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Crane

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

This only uses a single source, cannot find many/any sources outside of the listed one. Top results from searching show a separate Jason Crane. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocket from the Crypt, as most of this bio is about the band rather than this band member, and sources can't be found verifying the rest, suggesting that there is a fair amount of WP:OR (original research) here. Plus this is a WP:BLP (biography of a living person) and unverified information should be deleted. Search of Wikipedia Library, ProQuest, and Google mainly turns up the "other" Jason Crane who is a jazz musician and poet with his own radio show/podcast (although this 2001 article in Seattle Post-Intelligencer appears to mention "this" Jason Crane as part of Black Heart Procession). (Most likely a passing mention at best.) If/when someone decides to write an article about the "other" Jason Crane (if he does indeed turn out to be notable), they can create the article from the redirect. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above. Could not locate enough SIGCOV of the subject to justify keeping the article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:41, 1 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!} 01:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Carter (reporter)

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

This biography lacks any sources that are significant coverage. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Colorado, and Florida. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Steakvault who created the article, and nothing else, was immediately blocked as a Spam-advertising only account. — Maile (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Sports, Georgia (U.S. state), Illinois, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Vicious Cycle Software#Technology. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicious Engine

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

Not notable IgelRM (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 01:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~Delete~~ - fails the WP:GNG. I'm open to reconsidering if some are found, but it looks like this was largely used for games that fell somewhere between "low budget" and "shovelware", so it doesn't seem like the sort of thing that would garner much coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revising to redirect, as it is a plausible search term. No need to merge, as the bulk of the info is already present at the target as is. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to Vicious Cycle Software#Technology - Best sources I found: Game Developer Magazine (fairly short piece of a larger article), Edge Spain (interviewing engine and game developers), FiringSquad (very promotional feeling interview), The Escapist (another interview, doesn't talk about the engine much). I don't consider GDM piece significant coverage and the rest aren't independent of the subject. --Mika1h (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Mika1h. The only real source, the Gamasutra article, mentions the engine once and doesn't really talk about it. I found one piece from Game Developer, but it's short and I can't vouch for the quality of the website. At best, these sources are good enough for mentioning the engine in the Vicious Cycle Software article. Cortador (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Agus River#Timoga Springs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timoga Spring

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

Notability in question, potentially promotional material. The article was tagged as unreferenced since 2009. GNews search gave articles on craft beer. GNews archives search points to a property of the former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. GBooks has a passing mention in a book about 100 stories written by kids and an interview of a resort owner by the National Steel Corporation. GSearch is filled with travel blogs and social media posts that do not pass RS guidelines. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found some potential sources, but I am not sure how the article itself could be expanded from these: 1 and 2. Sanglahi86 (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sanglahi86 (talk · contribs) and Lenticel (talk · contribs), would you support a redirect to Agus River#Timoga Springs Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion? Cunard (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agus River#Timoga Springs with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I found a few sentences of coverage in several guidebooks. This is insufficient to support a standalone article but it is sufficient to add information about Timoga Springs to a related article. I added information about Timoga Springs to Agus River#Timoga Springs, whose tributary supplies Timoga Springs.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect to Agus River#Timoga Springs Cunard (talk · contribs) . The river meets WP:GEONATURAL so I'm fine with this suggestion and moving it to a section would reduce the promotional issues. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for supporting a redirect! Cunard (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agus River#Timoga Springs per Cunard. -Ian Lopez @ 15:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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