Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 30	June 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Yasmien Kurdi#Discography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmien Kurdi discography

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

Article was tagged as unreferenced since 2016. This is just an album listing which might violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Redirect to Yasmien_Kurdi#Discography as per WP:ATD at best. --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yasmien Kurdi#Discography: Not large enough to be disruptive to the main article/need to stand alone. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Yasmien Kurdi#Discography, Correct me if im wrong, but Yasmien Kurdi does not feel notable enough to have a discography article. TheNuggeteer (talk) 9:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge back as we usually due with such unreferenced lists or discogs. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Nylander

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

Non-notable figure skater who fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the standards of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Sweden. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Both subjects seem to meet the GNG with the Skate Today article already in the article, which provides WP:SIGCOV, along with native language sources such as [[1]]. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what Let'srun has pointed out above, I've expanded the article a little bit, building on Swedish news sources. /Julle (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julles additions AlexandraAVX (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Julle (talk)'s expansion and additions of news sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Julle (talk)'s expansion and good work to update the article. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 19:05, 4 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!} 22:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tango Balekile

(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. The most I found were a handful of sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 17:36, 17 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) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's this, this and this found in a simple search. Enough for a GNG pass I think. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources are ok, but are from the same day and about the same topic, while the third source has 3-ish IRS sentences and so is pretty far from being the sustained SIGCOV expected for N. Can you find more sources? JoelleJay (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 24 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!} 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage for a comprehensive independent biography IMO. JoelleJay (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article, while impressive in length, is based entirely on primary sources. The three sources provided by Rugbyfan22 are helpful, but not quite enough. The HeraldLive source in particular is just an interview. I am willing to reconsider if another source can be found, but I couldn't find one. Toadspike [Talk] 10:19, 7 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benazir Bhutto Shaheed University of Technology and Skill Development

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears notable, see Jang, Urdu Point, Dawn, [2], Business Recorder, Urdu Point, Daily Outcome, Dunya, Jang, etc. Again, I'd like to stress that the nominator posted 7 AfD nominations with identical rationales with 2 minutes, no indication of any real WP:BEFORE being performed. --Soman (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Soman, Urdu Point and Daily Outcome are not even RS while the coverage in rest of the sources are not sig/in-depth. Do we need a standalone WP article on every university exists on this planet? Fails WP:NCORP IMO. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does any law from the government or state say it's a public university? Charlie (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- CharlieMehta, This is what HEC says HEC NOC granted provisionally for 6 months upto June, 2017. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlieMehta: [3] 2A04:4A43:8F7F:F92B:181:CFCB:7DE9:2831 (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NONPROFIT. It is a state-funded university, established through an act of parliament (passed in 2016). 188.29.153.221 (talk) 13:27, 7 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. Sourcing is insufficient. Star Mississippi 01:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social Spirit

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

An essay full of WP:OR presenting a novel in non-encyclopedic and often unclear language. The sources don't validate "social spirit" as a unique concept in philosophy; instead, this essay appears to represent the author's own views. Given a lack of BEFORE references to "social spirit" in the context of this article I can't figure out a way to improve this that would allow it to stay. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Spirituality. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 10 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!} 23:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per SK1 as the nominator has given no coherent deletion rationale - the cited sources in the article that have "social spirit" in the title (i.e. Shablin, Smirnov, and Lazarev) clearly indicate that this meets WP:GNG as a notable topic. Probably it needs to be renamed "Social spirit" and any WP:OR/WP:SYNTH should be removed, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Psychastes (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not an essay because it is written based on reliable sources. Here we should also mention the “Handwörterbuch der Soziologie”, compiled by Götz Briefs, in 1931. The concept of “social spirit” was presented in that dictionary as known one. This also justifies the mention of him on Wikipedia, even from the point of view of the history of sociology. There were other works in German in the twentieth century, but due to the Second World War, research in this direction was complicated. This article appears to be an essay because there are no sources on this topic in English. But in general in science, this concept has its place. Russian articles contain abstracts about social spirit in English.Никитааа (talk) 06:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just about sourcing. It’s a two-part test, and the second part is: “It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.” My (valid) deletion rationale was WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, which are both aspects of that policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 - given that you added a "globalize" tag to the article, does that mean you're conceding that this article meets WP:GNG? because if you believe there are other perspectives that should be included in the article that's not exactly compatible with deleting it. I'm also changing my vote to Speedy Keep as it's plain that no coherent deletion rationale has been given. Psychastes (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the tag during New Page Review because it very much appears to have a narrow perspective on a concept covered elsewhere encyclopedically on Wikipedia. I absolutely do not concede that this means it meets GNG, see above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that “examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with Russia” is untrue, or at least a misunderstanding. On the contrary, this article deals only with examples from ancient and European history and sociology. This article does not contain even a single example from Russian history precisely because the idea of a universal tripartite social structure is very rarely found in Russian sources. The editor of this tag is probably motivated not by objectivity, but by the "canceling of science". 95.10.7.132 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source that refers directly to "social spirit" is in Russian. The other sources in the article refer to other concepts like "geist" and "national spirit." That's why the article reflects a Russian perspective. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But still, the article does not contain a single EXAMPLE dealing with Russia. This is the untruth in the tag. Or is the problem that Eastern European authors are considering a Western European retrospective?

And one more question: if you admit that the article refers directly to reliable sources, why do you think that this is an essay? 88.250.24.46 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Essays can refer to reliable sources. The problem isn't the sourcing, the problem is that this is pushing a particular intellectual theory in an unencyclopedic manner. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, not all of the authors of these sources are Russian. For example, Lazarev is Jewish by origin, but only Russian-speaking. And these are two big differences. So this is also not a completely correct statement about exclusively Russian perspectives in the article.Никитааа (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the tag says the "perspectives in this article deal primarily with Russia," not exclusively. And what could you possibly mean constructively by saying that Russian-speaking Jews can't represent a Russian perspective? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily, perspectives in this article deal with science. 176.220.242.60 (talk) 04:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I hope more editors will come, evaluate the article and sources and participate in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a poorly-translated version of Никитааа's (also-mediocre) ruwiki article, that doesn't understand English idiom well enough to claim that "social spirit" is a concept in English. Geist would be the only plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it is not a translation, but a text written by one author, and in one case it is in his native language, and in the other it is not. Secondly, Wikipedia is an international project and its rules do not limit the participation of foreign-language authors in writing articles. Thirdly, perfect articles in Wikipedia are usually created by collective efforts, in constructive collaboration. Fourthly, it is probably wrong to assume that the number of concepts in English has already reached its limit and there are no prospects for its development. 176.41.175.117 (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. Whenever a page here relies on a single author, it is de facto original research, especially when it is written as an essay. Wikipedia has never published original research. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an essay or original research because it is written based on reliably sources. All Wikipedia articles begin with one person writing them, and only then do others take part. 88.250.24.46 (talk) 07:28, 6 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!} 22:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Bennett (producer)

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:BASIC. Lacking in-depth coverage and pretty much all of it is just because she's Tony Bennett's daughter. This People article is the best source I could find and it's an "All About Tony Bennett's Kids" article with a short section on her. Notability is not inherited. C F A 💬 22:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Leaving aside "Tony Bennett's daughter" (because notability is not inherited) what's left doesn't amount to WP:SIGCOV.--AntientNestor (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above. Very little of what she has done amounts to being notable as we define it. Her only claims to notability are her father and being on the board of an organization. Bearian (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This article has transformed significantly from the version nominated for deletion and there is a clear consensus to keep. I thank Shortiefourten for their work expanding it. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ceres, Washington

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

A belated prod undeletion: Ceres is a rail station with a general store, the post office was cabinet in the general store [4]. It's also a hill nearby. The area is known as Ceres Hill, so likely needs a move if not deleted.

Original reasoning:Not a notable location. All of the sources mentioned are either trivial mentions or are insufficient for notability (GNIS; Jim Forte). Only reference 6 approaches reliability, and it plainly states that Ceres was just a road-rail crossing with a general store, and the post office was a "pigeon cabinet" in the corner of the store. Satellite images reveal the store and railroad are both gone now, with a single farmhouse nearby. Non-notable; fails WP:GEOLAND. (proposed by WeirdNAnnoyed) James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as the PRODder) for reasons given above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Non-notable community. TH1980 (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite/reclassify as a former community. A long read is available at the Talk:Ceres, Washington page with details in early history of Ceres. I agree that such a community no longer exists, but it did from the late 1890s and with some strength into the late 1930s. Small, rural communities are rarely given due historical attention, but thanks to local reporting, even if in snippets, we can see the Ceres community that once existed. If via consensus we keep the article, I volunteer to rewrite and expand the page.Shortiefourten (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources compiled by Shortiefourten on the article talk page shows this is a recognized populated place sufficient to be kept. The Origin of Washington Geographic Names sources also calls it a "town", though I understand that to be in the American way that rural areas gathered community identities.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone volunteering to rewrite this article as proposed by one editor?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Me, me, me! I do, I do, I do! I'm out of action this Memorial Day weekend but I can certainly start working on it by Tuesday, using the sourcing already found. Thanks! Shortiefourten (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sourcing detailed on the Talk page. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article has been expanded using sources from the Talk page and rewritten to declare it a former community (no sources since the 1950s refers to it as such) and now as a locale. Feel free to copyedit or use differing terminology to describe Ceres. Thanks to all who participated, and let's Keep this thing!Shortiefourten (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coat hangered would be a better description of what happened there. It doesn't exist and her revisions only further highlight that. James.folsom (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article now has basically been rewritten. Does that influence opinions? An editorial assessment of changes made would help with this closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The expansion and subsequent sourcing on this in the last week or so has improved this tremendously. A tremendous amount of sourcing backs up this article. Category:Ghost town articles by importance shows Wikipedia with over 2,000 such articles. It's OK to have ghost towns on Wikipedia, as long as they are adequately sourced. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if it were a ghost town, instead just a place where trains picked up cargo, water and coal. James.folsom (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are 41 references on this page. SpokaneWilly (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guan Xueting

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

Non-notable figure skater who fails WP:NSKATE; bronze/silver medal placements at the national championship level do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much more results if one searches for the name with hanzi, rather than with pinyin. I've added a couple of sources. /Julle (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Julle, but aside from the sources about her abduction that Julle added to the article (which I am worried that some may consider them as run-out-of-mill or 1E), I have further added three sources from Sohu and China Daily which detailed her figure skating and post-retirement coaching career. Fulfils GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has received enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eissporthalle Iserlohn

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing to add from the article on de.wiki. not seeing much else which could be considered against the inclusion criteria JMWt (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Germany. JMWt (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iserlohn Roosters, whose home stadium this is - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:41, 24 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!} 23:04, 24 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!} 22:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Improvements during AfD clear up any doubts about notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:19, 4 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 restore dab‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spitalfields Market

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

This page is a duplicate of Old Spitalfields Market which has existed since 2004. The page does not relate to New Spitalfields Market which has its own page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Food and drink, and Shopping malls. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore dab for which its useful. Star Mississippi 12:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning to restoring the dab page. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of mayors of Varna. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Portnih

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

Fails WP:NPOL and there is literally no source to establish WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are WP:ROUTINE coverages, statistical data, etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Bulgaria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>>>List of mayors of Varna.Djflem (talk) 18:05, 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 keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 New Jersey earthquake

AfDs for this article:

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

Now that the dust has settled down it is quite evident that no lasting coverage exists for this. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS applies. Run of the mill earthquake that is unnotable, this wouldn't be an article if it occurred anywhere else in the world Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons I stated in the previous nomination. This was an exceedingly rare event and regardless if it doesn’t have lasting coverage shouldn’t mean it isn’t notable. Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after.--MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rarity is not notability.

>Lots of things more important then the earthquake took over as the top news in the weeks after

Because the event was just news, nothing more. Notable events get reporting outside of just news.

WP:NEVENT is the relevant notability guideline here which has not been met. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Are we sure there is no lasting coverage? by the way, the continued aftershocks are relevant. 2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continued aftershocks are not relevant to lasting coverage of the earthquake, or else this would be the '2024 New Jersey earthquakes' Traumnovelle (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftershocks were deemed relevant for the 2024 Noto earthquake and 2024 Hualien earthquake. Besides the first reference isn't even about an aftershock. --2600:4808:353:7B01:1785:F9F3:5DC9:D12E (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is about repairing the damage, routine for the event.

The two other articles have references which show lasting impact and coverage such as [5] and [6]

Also you are comparing earthquakes more than a hundred times the power with over a thousand casualties each to one that had not a single casualty. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Trout Slap The sources demonstrate global coverage in news and scientific publications. The previous AfD closed as Keep just weeks ago and nothing has changed. It's all relative. For example, at a whopping 1,803 feet (550 m), High Point (New Jersey) is an article for the tallest mountain in New Jersey, which would be a pimple in California, Colorado or Alaska. This was the strongest quake in the state in 240 years, and I'd be more than comfortable with the pace of four New Jersey earthquake articles every millennium, and the next one appearing somewhere in the 2260s. So the AfD rationalization is that it's already weeks past the earthquake and there isn't daily coverage so we need to delete the article? Time to whip out the trout and thrash it as needed. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible example, that mountain has a state park and ski park, both of which confer notability beyond simply being a mountain.

Maybe I missed a link but I do not see any scientific publications in the reference list. WP:NEVENT is the relevant guideline.

WP:EVENTCRIT, fails that.

WP:LASTING, gives quite a clear example as to why this is not notable.

WP:GEOSCOPE 'such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article'

WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is satisfied based on the scope and breadth of reliable and verifiable sources about the earthquake. The earthquake itself occurred mere weeks ago and it is far, far too soon to be whining about WP:PERSISTENCE, which explicitly says "this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not". Come back in a few years and we can discuss as a community. Until then, move on. Alansohn (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, if it is too soon to determine notability then it is too soon to have an article. GNG is also a presumption of notability and the relevant criteria for this article is NEVENT. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason I said the last time this article was elected. This was a very rare event, both in magnitude and location. I've still seen talks about the earthquake to this day, and I feel like this was an important event and should have a page dedicated to it. OurAfternoonMalady (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced per WP:SIGCOV. It was in the news for weeks. It will likely be in annual retrospectives in December. It is still being studied academically, and is exactly the type that will be in popular culture for years. Bad nomination and arguments to delete worthy of a trout slap. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've already made my case before as I nominated it the first time, but now that no one talks about it anymore it's even more obvious it shouldn't be an article. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per all the above keeps, as well as a comment that this was largely settled in the last AfD, nothing has changed, the arguments have not changed, the policies have not changed, and that this is largely a waste of valuable editors' time. Tduk (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Value Inquiry Book Series

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

Tagged for uncertain notability for 13 years. No sourcing to show a pass of the GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any independent coverage Traumnovelle (talk) 21:32, 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 redirect‎ to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023. Editors can merge any content they feel is relevant and discuss a change in the article title on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2024

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

With all due respect to the page creator, I think it's evident by now that it's past the time for the "Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic" series to end. Case numbers from Malaysia and New Zealand every few days, two arbitrary case counts from other countries, a couple thresholds and anniversaries, and links to WHO situation reports, do not a notable or encyclopedic topic make. All of the "countries and territories" with no infections have zero permanent population anyway. This topic doesn't meet WP:NOTDATABASE or WP:NLIST; there is not enough worldwide noteworthy content out there to justify the existence of such a timeline nowadays, as opposed to the early pandemic.

Due to the decline of testing, case numbers are not accurate anymore anyway. "The actual number of cases is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases – this is due to limited testing." - Our World in Data. Experts from WHO and elsewhere asked by Time are uncertain it even is a pandemic anymore, with some outright saying it is not; there will never be an official cutoff for an exact end date of the pandemic since WHO does not officially classify pandemics (also noted in Time and elsewhere). And because COVID-19 is expected to circulate indefinitely and become an endemic respiratory virus, this series must end at some point even though case numbers continue to be reported (as they are for seasonal flu, which we don't track on Wikipedia). I believe that time is here, as evidenced by what the series has shrunk into. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, Medicine, and Lists. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023 and rename to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic since 2023. Agree with nom, week-by-week case numbers in individual countries are simply not what should be included in a global article like this. I want to give props to the editors here, but great folks have also been keeping Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Malaysia medical cases chart and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/New Zealand medical cases chart updated for COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia and COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand so putting this data in prose form is not necessary. I then recommend trimming the target article and previous monthly articles of routine country-specific data updates and only including significant news (which does not include random singers and athletes contracting it). Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't "Timeline of COVID-19 since 2023" be more useful, since as noted, whether or not it is actually still "pandemic" is now disputed by experts (and likely to become an even less favored viewpoint in the future)? I still think we can just delete it and end the series, but I thought I'd raise this. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom; this isn't as important as it once was. We know have moved on, the world is open again, and Covid is more of an annoyance than a pandemic... We need to stop this series of yearly/monthly articles at some point and 2024 seems to be a logical place to stop. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not so notable for now. Orientls (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked on that page as well as the New Zealand and Malaysian pages, I agree that it will probably be best for me to stop working on the global timeline page. I am glad someone raised this topic since I need someone to tell me when to stop. Will accept any decision taken by the Wikipedia community. Andykatib 08:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Reywas92. It's not impossible that there will be COVID events this year suitable for a timeline, but the weekly updates from Malaysia and New Zealand are not that. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect can be fine too. Orientls (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There may be a place for discussing still-ongoing DUE issues related to the pandemic (probably on the endemic article or something similar), but it's too SYNTHy to call it 'COVID-19 pandemic since x' because that implies a pandemic is occurring, which requires compliance with WP:BURDEN to state. So it's best to delete for now. 'Timeline of COVID-19 since x' is better and we can keep that in mind depending on how sources comment on the subject. SmolBrane (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023 and rename to Timeline of COVID-19 since 2023 per Reywas92. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:43, 4 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!} 22:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TextMagic

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

I found no notability. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Estonia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a firm with a corporate SMS product, which has changed hands a couple of times, most recently with a share offering on Nasdaq Tallinn. In its current state, the article references concern its share offering, which falls under trivial coverage. An earlier article version had this Small Business Trends piece (2015) as a reference, but that is effectively a company Q&A. There is also a 2023 item on a company acquisition but that is announcement-based coverage. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:33, 6 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!} 22:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bombsters

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

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim on offer here is that they exist (or existed, because a lot of the information here is very outdated), and the referencing is entirely to primary sources (music sourced to its own presence on iTunes or YouTube, etc.) that are not support for notability.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely unnotable. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS and the band appears to have fizzled out. Their youtube channel only has 300 something subscribers... There is no news about them, other than a few places to stream their music. I doubt they were ever notable by our standards, even less today. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 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 merge‎ to American Jewish Press Association. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rockower Award

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

Merge into American Jewish Press Association. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, no WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with the proposal. Simon Rockower should be merged into American Jewish Press Association, and then converted into a redirect.
Eric Schucht (talk) 16:28, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Robinson (scientist)

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

I don't doubt that he was indeed librarian of the Yorkshire Philosphical Society during the dates given but in no world is that a claim to notability. In 1850 he was listed as auditor and council member of the same,^[1] and that's all I got from a BEFORE. Seems like a very odd choice for an article to be honest. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Annual Report of the Yorkshire Philsophical Society MDCCCL

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too little here to justify notability under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For a little while, I thought this Henry Robinson might have been the civil engineer who was the author of "River Pollution" and Sewerage and Sewer Disposal (1896). I don't think that Henry Robinson is notable either, but his writing was at least influential in the late 19th century debate in England about whether rivers were inherently "self-cleaning" or whether pollution needed to be managed. However, they're not the same person. This is clearly about the Henry Robinson who is the subject of this "article"; his son Charles Best Norcliffe discusses his "late" father. That was published in 1884, so the author of the 1896 book cannot be the same man. With that in mind, I have absolutely no idea what this article was trying to accomplish. I think I can find references for the claims it makes, but why? There's nothing here or, so far as I can tell, elsewhere to suggest any particular level of notability or importance. Lubal (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough here for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
delete the only references to him were in the YPS minutes and the York directories. I suspect that he may have been a fine fellow, but not especially notable even during his lifetime — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this him [7]? Talks a bit about the person, but still not enough for keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that Henry Robinson wrote in the 17th century, while the article's Henry Robinson was active in the mid-1800s. Lubal (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no allegation of notability nor any evidence therefor. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 5 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!} 08:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Dumond

(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. JTtheOG (talk) 17:25, 24 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) 17:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A few team announcement bits, but not enough for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:05, 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!} 18:49, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duwayne Smart

(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) 17:15, 24 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) 17:15, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 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!} 18:49, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Katzen

(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) 17:11, 24 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) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 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!} 18:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas El-Akkad Experimental Language School

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Wikilover3509 (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CCOS, GNG and NORG. Bgv. (talk) 08:15, 28 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!} 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in the article is a unique detail of the school. I am not sure how to find more sources due to the language barrier but the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia at most gives only one more. ✶Qux yz ✶ 19:49, 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Kavatshi Airlines Antonov An-26B crash

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

Accident doesn't demonstrate needed notability for an article. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Whilst the event does have coverage (minimal), the majority of them are in french with all of them being short stories. I haven't been able to find any coverage post-2005 involving this accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Yet again another Antonov accident that doesnt fail WP:NOTNEWS, an accident with 11 fatalities is not an everyday occurance. Lolzer3000 (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an event doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS doesn't mean it automatically gets a keep. No lasting effects were demonstrated from the accident. It has been 18 years since the accident and the accident has not demonstrated any (long-term) impacts. The event does not have significant nor reliable coverage.

Per WP:EVENTCRIT:

_{Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect.} Event does not fulfill this criteria.
_{Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).} No widespread impact or coverage in diverse sources with no analysis of the accident.
_{Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.} Event has limited coverage.
_{Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.} Nothing inherently notable about this accident even if tragic.

Post-2005, I haven't been able to find any coverage regarding this accident thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

an accident like this is indefinetly going to fail the 10-year test that many deletion authors go by, no accident has continued coverage over 19 years. Lolzer3000 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure no accident will have continued coverage for over 19 years but an accident should at least be mentioned/ talked about for at least a year especially for an accident with that many fatalities. All news sources are primary sources which means it is impossible to source reliable secondary sources. All news sources only state the circumstances of the accident without any analysis of the accident failing WP:INDEPTH.

The event fails the general notability guidelines as it has no significant coverage and no reliable secondary sources. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeable here, i can only find a singular source covering it 6 days later, linked below, there is an in depth summary in 2005 in aviation so the general deletion of the article itself wouldnt be a problem because the information is still pertained in the summary.

[8] (the mentioned link) Lolzer3000 (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability issue needs more attention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lolzer3000: Are you in favour of the deletion? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:30, 28 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!} 18:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of continued or widespread coverage that would assist in meeting EVENTCRIT. No evidence of meeting GNG. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mention it in a list of aircraft crashes instead. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ——Serial Number 54129 11:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theatre Workshop

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

Article was merged to Broadcast Music, Inc.#BMI Lehman Engel Musical Theater Workshop, but it does not have that enough sources to establish notability. A {{notability}} tag was placed three days ago but no new sourcing was introduced. Toadette^Edit! 18:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is an important musical theatre institution, numerous sources about which are easily found on Google as well as pre-internet sources. It already had plenty of good sources, and I added a couple more. This article should be greatly expanded. I think the nominator should do a Google news search and withdraw this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, given the number, range and weight of sources (the retrospective on its fortieth anniversary in the industry magazine Backstage should be enough od an indication on its own really, but there are numerous others). - SchroCat (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Clearly a notable organization with lots of WP:SIGCOV across several decades in a wide range of sources. It even gets 47 hits in google scholar which shows there is coverage in academic publications as well as in the many newspaper and magazines used as sources in the article already. This was not a well thought through nomination.4meter4 (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MacGregor (filmmaker)

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

Non-notable filmmaker with an unsourced BLP Niafied (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Spain, and United States of America. sig
Keep: Unsourced? Yes. Rewrite? Needed. But I don't think the subject person is non-notable. He was listed as the cinematographer for several big productions in the article, including Vivarium, Fall, Kandahar, and A Thousand Suns, as well as a documentary film The Mauritania Railway: Backbone of the Sahara credited with his real name Miguel de Olaso. For each one I found sources to back it. (The Jewish Chronicle and Screen Daily for Vivarium[9][10], Empire and The Austin Chronicle for Fall[11][12], The Hindu and IBC for Kandahar[13]&[14], Inverse for A Thousand Suns[15], and The Atlantic for The Mauritania Railway [16]) So this already fulfills the third criterion of WP:FILMMAKER, where a person has to play a major role in co-creating a well-known work with multiple reliable sources to cover or review it. I also found an interview of the subject person with Red Shark News[17], which covered his early life in detail, but I'm not sure about the reliability of this source and whether it can be considered as demonstrating notability. Nonetheless, I think fulfilling WP:FILMMAKER would already be sufficient for me to vote Keep. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Prince of Erebor. I can see why it would attract a deletion nomination though. He was interviewed by Red Shark News and there are a couple other good articles to use. He's picked up some good awards. I can't understand why though with this much work, there are no refs. I had a quick look in the history and there were some a while back. But they're gone. Rather than draft or redirect, a bold tag to improve this article is a must. Karl Twist (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per rationale above. Be icaverraverra]] _talk 03:01, 6 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 speedy deleted via G5‎ by CactusWriter. This is a procedural close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Xuefeng Chen

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

Possibly WP:CSD#G5 per the SPI case. 虹易 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Environment, Technology, Internet, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@虹易 Do you have any further arguments towards deletion besides association? While it certainly needs work, the article seems okay at a glance from an inclusion standpoint. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: The article has been ~~moved to draft space~~ deleted per G5. @虹易: The nominator may consider withdrawing and speedy keeping this discussion per WP:CSK#1, as the subject article no longer exists. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor Was it moved to draftspace or entirely deleted? I wanted to look at it more... Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: Ah, my mistake. The page has already been deleted by CactusWriter, instead of being moved to draftspace. I guess you have to request for undeletion if you would like to continue working on the page. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:33, 4 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 speedy delete‎ as G5 by Bbb23. This is a procedural close and restoration of the page, if desired, should be discussed with the deleting admin or another uninvolved admin, who may restore it at their discretion. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATRenew

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

Possibly WP:CSD#G5 per the SPI case. 虹易 (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, Technology, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep publicly traded company on NYSE, has plenty citations in the article and more in Google. I have found these additional citations Seeking Alpha and Business Insider.Hkkingg (talk) 08:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Benzinga (the actual source of the BI article) is not an RS, and it says right there at the bottom that This article is from an unpaid external contributor. It does not represent Benzinga's reporting and has not been edited for content or accuracy. You've been here over a year, please do some basic due diligence on your !votes, this is almost a better argument for delete than keep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moved to draft space per G5. @虹易: The nominator may consider withdrawing and speedy keeping this discussion per WP:CSK#1, as the subject article no longer exists. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:32, 3 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Noise

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT, no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprising lack of coverage in third-party sources. One thing to note that it was most recently positioning itself as a "magazine" rather than a "newspaper" – but searching for it as a magazine hasn't turned up much else either. Searched ProQuest, Wikipedia Library (general EBSCOHost), Internet Archive, and Google with multiple search string variants. Does not meet WP:GNG and OK to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:57, 4 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 speedy keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Li Keqiang

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

Only two Chinese supreme leaders (Mao & Jiang) have articles about their death, and his funeral was far less grand than these two. Even the death of Hu Yaobang (which triggered June 4th) don't has article about his death. Coddlebean (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. Coddlebean (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coddlebean, which deletion criterion is met here? You used similar argumentation at the Early life of Mao Zedong AfD quite recently, and that article was speedily kept because you did not provide a rationale. Folly Mox (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree with @Folly Mox your nominations need to provide a clear rationale. Saying x similar article exists or y similar article doesn't exist isn't a rationale for deletion. The article is both on its face impressively sourced and in need of cleanup, but I don't think there's any discernible policy-based rationale here. Oblivy (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#3 – I don't see anything resembling a rationale for deletion in the nomination statement. The article looks fine at a quick glance. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: per Mx. Granger; WP:CSK#3, as the nominator did not provide any rationale for deletion. Also, I disagree with the example the nominator raised. Death of Hu Yaobang [zh] did exist in zhwiki, and it is clearly notable as well since it is literally the triggering point of the June 4th Incident with many in-depth analysis from academic or media sources. The fact that it does not have an article in enwiki is simply because no one had created it yet, and this argument is clearly a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:CSK#3 as no valid deletion rationale is provided. I also concur with Mx Granger and Prince of Erebor above. S5A-0043^Talk 16:35, 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 keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Mannheim stabbing

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to indicate that this will generate significant lasting coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

1. The event has a lot of news coverage

2. There is a clear perpetrator who was caught on camera

3. There are multiple victims

4. The police have released a report on the incident in its immediate aftermath Salfanto (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that this is only the first day of the event right? Salfanto (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is all the more reason why we should not have an article on it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The attack has received widespread global attention and clear impact on the highest political levels in Germany for a politically motivated attack on notable Islam-critic Michael Stürzenberger. Clear indications that this will have significant lasting impact/coverage. See also Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and 2024 Wakeley church stabbing (bishop Mari Emmanuel) for similar recent attacks. Thismess (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widespread coverage. Obvious keep. Thriley (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nominator have a history of deletion nomination which fail to pass, its obvious that this guy have no idea about the deletion criteria Afif Brika1 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you attacking the editor and not the nomination itself? I looked through his past nominations and they were all fine and consensus agreed with him/is agreeing with him. His AfD stats show 75%+ which is a fine number for AfD.

As to the article itself, even though it may achieve notability in the future it has yet to. WP:TOOSOON applies here and we should not be creating these articles the minute these events occur. Thus I support the nomination in Delete (Or turning into a draft) until it is actually possible for notability to be ascertained. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only agreeing with the editor above, but considering the past week of news regarding the surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, this attack will surely stir something in the coming days/weeks. Volkish Kurden (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Michael Stürzenberger would appear to be a notable victim and the perpetrator is likely to face trial. There is likely to be ongoing media coverage. At least allow the German judicial processes to run their course, before passing final judgement. This incident is already a sub-article of the Michael Stürzenberger, so a Merger with that article is also an alternative to deletion. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michael Stürzenberger. There are alot of WP:CRYSTAL arguments here. I see no reason why this can't be covered in another article for the time being. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Stabbing of Salman Rushdie and Salman Rushdie are separate articles; and also taking into account that there were others affected in the attack besides Michael Stürzenberger himself, I think it is best to keep them as independent articles. ComradeHektor (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a clear case of WP:RAPID. Not even a day has passed since the event. The initial news coverage has not passed yet, and we're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until at least a few weeks later. The attack also involves notable activist and critic of Islam Michael Stürzenberger. Also considering the recent stabbing attacks in Australia (2024 Wakeley church stabbing and Bondi Junction stabbings) still in the news cycle and the current surge of right-wing nationalism in Germany, I think there will be signifiant news coverage in the next few days. 106.71.58.30 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable people involved and the whole event was recorded which will of course circulate the internet for years to come, and therefore I think deserves a stand-alone article. Kiwiz1338 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable violent event with a famous person involved, multiple injuries and one fatality. Killuminator (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article as it is a major event with where a known figure was attacked and one person was killed in the result of the attack. In my opinion this event is worth of having it's own wikipedia article Szymonexis (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

when a politician is attacked, it is notable and important for history/archive/future reference. Compare with shooting of Slovak prime minister.
it already has very significant coverage not only in Germany but internationally - every major newspaper in Sweden ran a story.
this will become a major thing in right-wing circles as well as anti-immigration circles. That makes a Wikipedia-article and factual foundation even more important. 83.185.46.97 (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of national and international coverage, high-profile and public incident, multiple victims, etc. Johndavies837 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no doubt in that in my opinion Braganza (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

1. Although this is related to Michael Stürzenberger in that the event happened during one of his protests, the event attack is not just related to him and his protest, but has a wider character including whether German Police policies and training were instrumental or contributory to the death of the policeman (which has nothing to do with Michael Stürzenberger)

2. The stabbing has received global media coverage to an worldwide audience for whom Michael Stürzenberger is an unknown or at least ancillary figure.

3. If the stabbing hadn't happened Michael Stürzenberger's protest would have been unreported beyond the local media of Mannheim.

4. To subjugate the murder of the policeman as a sub-topic of Michael Stürzenberger's wiki entry would be to diminish the policeman's bravery and tarnish his death in service, when in fact his courage and sacrifice should be lauded. 92.238.123.206 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Loads of media coverage by both media and on social media Ghostingb (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have any of the keep votes readWP:NOTNEWS. Altho having read that the first victim is notable I'd amend my opinion to a merge to this unpleasant individual's article.TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I know nothing about the person in question, but noted that you seem to hold unfavorable views of him. Quote: "merge to this unpleasant individual's article".
is it possible that your negative views of the person affect your judgement?
you are very alone in thinking that this shouldn't be a standalone article. 83.185.46.97 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of the victim is neither here nor there. It does not affect my opinion that this is an event that will generate no lasting coverage. TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge to Michael Stürzenberger: This is a BLP violation. Low profile individuals have been named in this article as having committed crimes without any conviction being obtained. Per WP:BLPCRIME this shouldn't be happening. This needs to be sent to draft at the very least. However it would be better to merge any useful material to the Michael Stürzenberger article as they seem to be the only notable person in this incident. TarnishedPath^talk 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This event has caused a widespread media-echo, at least in the German-speaking countries. There's also an outrage, how this could happen. Yes, we are looking at a party/movement that is Islam-critical to Anti-Islamic, and attacker who seems to be from Afghanistan (so likely a Muslim), but who has lived in Germany for some time and is married to a German woman. It is likely that this event will stay in the heads of the people, and not be linked to one of the proponents of the party who organized the event where it happened. In that context, the focus should be to keep this article, and to amend what is missing from the German-language version, rather than deleting it.--Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep are you for real? Tons of coverage and this is on par with 2023 Quran burnings in Sweden and 2019 London Bridge stabbing. Alexceltare2 (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A multiple casualty incident by European norms which occurred amid heated sociocultural discussions in Germany and the continent, further exacerbated by the EP election. Borgenland (talk) Borgenland (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 1 person is dead. Borgenland (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a repository of news stories. Any !vote suggesting that it's notable based solely on news coverage should be discarded. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:N(E), widespread coverage for an extended duration of time comprises notability. Newgrass 82 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several people were stabbed and it resulted in the death of a police officer, furthermore the event recieved world wide news coverage. Durraz0 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Still meets WP:COVERAGE and has global coverage; meets WP:NEWSEVENT. --WikiLinuz (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep notorious victim, numerous sources, high level political reactions, possible influence on incoming elections. Diderot1 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an assassination attempt against a notable German Islam-critic, the attack caused many casualties, and the attack has been commented on by dozens of politicians and received widespread (and also international) coverage. This is clearly a significant event and not just a normal news story. Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I have read WP:NOTNEWS. Going to WP:N(E) from there, my judgement is that this event is definitely significant and interesting enough to keep. Newgrass 82 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read WP:NOTNEWS, too, and I think that this article is not an original reporting (it is quite well referenced), it is not a WP:ROUTINE event (the mass stabbing happened during a political rally coming just one week before hotly-contested European elections, in which immigration is an hot topic), for sure it is WP:NOTGOSSIP. P1221 (talk) 08:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an important event which has received lots of international coverage. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:304, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep and close. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain per most above; see WP:SNOWBALL and just get this over with.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 16:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't fault the nominator, but this article has grown a lot in the last few days as the coverage continues to expand and in my opinion it clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's been another stabbing in the very same city, a far right politician is the target again so I think we can put a fork in this discussion and possibly expand the scope of the article to include the new stabbing as well. Killuminator (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor incident that is unfortunate but will soon be forgotten by almost everyone. Low notability.--EpicAdventurer (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Epic remark, indeed. I take it as sarcasm, for those who don't get it. A policeman is dead. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are neither a newspaper nor a media agency! EpicAdventurer (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Assault on Michael Stürzenberger as the was the target (still is a target for many radicals, probably). Open hostility to him and his views is shown here and elsewhere. Also, a few days later, a "2024 Mannheim stabbing, part deux" on a local politician when he caught a guy who had removed/stolen his posters. 2003:C6:373C:F127:5099:D27:9B2D:4E98 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widespread global news coverage _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 18:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per P1221. Procyon117 (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming I already voted keep a few days ago but I want to add that I'm opposed to changing the title to 'Assault on Michael Stürzenberger' or something similar. There are multiple victims here and the only fatality was a police officer, not Stürzenberger. The police officer, Rouven Laur, has received significant media coverage as well. I'm also not sure whether there's enough evidence to say the attacker specifically targeted Stürzenberger or just the rally in general. Johndavies837 (talk) 10:18, 7 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. Star Mississippi 02:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citybuzz

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

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussions of similar recent deletions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 1; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 --wooden superman 08:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination this fails WP:GNG as there is no significant non-WP:ROTM coverage in WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added several sources and notability is now established per WP:GNG. ROTM is an essay, is subjective, and is trumped by GNG, a guideline. Route is not comparable to articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 7 as this one has sufficient sourcing available online. Garuda3 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though perhaps, this article ought to be moved to Brighton & Hove bus routes 37 and 37B as I couldn't find any coverage on "City Buzz" or "Citybuzz" which may be what prompted this AfD. Garuda3 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your claim that WP:GNG has now been met for this routine bus route. The sources you've added are from local news sites and hardly meet WP:SIGCOV. --wooden superman 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in question added above just confirm that the route exists, that it will continue to exist, or that it will change the timetable on which it exists. This verifies that the route exists, but it doesn't contribute notability as the significance of the route is never discussed. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to discuss the "significance" of something. That's subjective. They just need to discuss it, per WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be secondary commentary. The above are all dependent sources that are basically just reprints of the local travel authority saying that they're doing a thing. And secondly, the coverage is WP:ROUTINE which states "news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article". BrigadierG (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ROUTINE refers to events. This article is about a bus route, not an event, so that policy isn't relevant here. I disagree with the need for commentary - that may be appropriate for an artistic work like a film or book but doesn't feel applicable to something practical, in this case a bus route but also buildings, railway stations etc. Garuda3 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in this case the event is the funding of this bus route, or the changing timetable of this bus route, or so on. Generally though, WP:MILL. BrigadierG (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, you could argue any update on anything ever is an EVENT. I think that's an extreme interpretation and not what the policy was intended for. It was intended for Wikipedia articles about events. WP:MILL is an essay, is subjective, and not policy. Garuda3 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WUVM-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: The ex-Una Vez Más stations may be a marginal step up from the completely non-notable HC2/Innovate stations that have never been anything else (complete with securing cable and even satellite coverage), but with little-to-no significant coverage that means little by the more GNG-based 2024 inclusion standards (and the station's earliest days were as a definitely non-notable ValueVision/ShopNBC repeater). (This article has been around since 2004, which was a time of far lower inclusion standards sitewide; keep in mind, this topic area was lax about inclusion standards almost right up to this 2021 RfC.) This happens to be another a nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles; that it was nominated there and then does not suggest the existence of the required sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDWW-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Looks like this has only carried full-time national services in its nearly 20 years, even before DTV America/HC2/Innovate took over. I doubt this station has had any significant coverage at any point. A remnant of the lower inclusion standards of 2009, and yet another nominal survivor of a 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WYGA-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: This station has been around a bit longer than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but it doesn't appear to have ever been anything other than a carrier of full-time national services—or, more relevantly, the subject of any significant coverage—in all that time. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and another nominal survivor of the 2023 bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles, WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 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. (non-admin closure) 𝓡𝔂𝓭𝓮𝔁 11:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Wareen

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

Disputed draftification. Moved to mainspace immediate after being declined and pushed back for further work. Since there is the potential for notability to be proven I suggest the outcome be to draftify. I have also nominated the picture currently featured since the licence is in doubt. Fails WP:NMUSICIAN as presented here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When I encountered this BLP, rather than immediately nom it for deletion, I decided to give it a chance by draftifying it. However, the BLPs creator Pashtonyar moved it back to the main NS after the review was declined. The subject does not satisfy the GNG as well NSINGER, and the BLP currently relies heavily on trivial mentions and ROTM coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Saqib. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 23:47, 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 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentencing of Donald Trump in New York

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

This poorly referenced substub should be redirected to the small but better referenced section at Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York#Sentencing. Right now, we don't know what this will be, so we are crystall-balling stuff. No prejudice to this being restored as an article when the section grows, but there is no need for this to remain as a stand-alone article in the current form. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider either putting it in my draftspace for incubation/protection. Currently im choosing to keep it up.

If i do put it in my draftspace, I will readd it to the wiki in 1 or 2 weeks before that.

~ Snipertron12 :3 ~ [|User|Talk|Cont|] 12:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipertron12: you shouldn't unilaterally move an article while an AfD is open. And if you wait for the AfD to close, and it closes as delete, there won't be anything to draftify as deletion follows closure usually pretty promptly.

Also, your intention to publish this again 1-2 weeks before sentencing is not materially different to where we are now, in that it will still be about an uncertain future event. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no way of telling as of now if his sentencing will be independently notable from his prosecution & conviction, so it's best to leave it all in one article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reason for an article on a future event; the Prosecution article has a sentencing section. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ongoing current event might or might not warrant an article in Wikipedia. But starting a new article for every development turns Wikipedia into a forum for news bulletins, which it is not. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom 2601:441:8284:1CC0:2CC7:8112:D93C:9FB3 (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Everything in this article is covered and better sourced in the main article, so this is just a dupe. ruth Bader yinzburg (talk) ★

Delete. There is no reason to split this from the main article at this point in time. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's WP:CONTENTFORK at this point. Prosecution, conviction and sentencing can all be covered in one place. Keivan.f^Talk 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:FORK, and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 5 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 Deleted G11‎. Speedy deleted by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sri LakshmiSrinivasGuruji

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

Disputed draftification, by COI editor. Requires deletion. BLP issues. Fails WP:BIO. This is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unsure what this person does, making determination of notability difficult. Very PROMO and I find no sources about this person. Might even speedy delete for promotion. Oaktree b (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two major instances of copyright violation have been detected and removed. There is barely enough left to form a stub. After redaction of the copyvios I doubt there is sufficient remaining to form an article. The second tranche was redacted post nomination. As nominator I would have no objection to a speedy deletion and close. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:30, 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 Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Tanaka (figure skater)

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. 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) 12:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion below, this AFD can be closed as Speedy keep as I withdraw the nomination. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Hong Kong. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found some Chinese sources which mentioned he won champion in the senior level of 2007 Hong Kong Figure Skating And Short Track Speed Skating Championships (where the national-level Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships is a part of; see Oriental Daily News[18]), so as a national figure skating champion, the subject person already fulfills the second criterion of WP:NSKATE. I also found additional sources which mentioned him representing Hong Kong in the Asian Open Figure Skating Trophy and Asian Winter Games (See The Sun[19] and China Central Television[20]), although I consider them as passing mentions and may not be able to pass GNG. Nonetheless, I think passing WP:NSKATE is already sufficient for me to vote for a keep, at least not a delete. And I suggest the nominator can do some WP:BEFORE searches for sources in the subject person's native languages before filing for deletions. This seems like the third time for me to vote for a figure skater article nominated by the same editor. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that he won a gold medal at the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships. His ISU profile shows no placement at the 2007 championships. He did win the silver medal on three separate occasionas, but a silver medal at a national-level championship does not meet the standards of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bgsu98: Hi Bgsu. Please check the Oriental Daily News source I attached. The title reads "The heavily favoured Tatsuya Tanaka wins Champion", and the body goes "The Hong Kong Figure Skating And Short Track Speed Skating Championships have concluded successfully. The Japanese-Chinese mixed Tatsuya Tanaka, who will represent Hong Kong at the Asian Winter Games, was the hot favorite and won champion in the men's division..." (香港花樣滑冰及短道速滑錦標賽圓滿結束，即將代表香港出戰亞洲冬季運動會的日中混血兒田中達也，大熱贏得男子組冠軍...) Oriental Daily News is an established and mainstream newspaper in Hong Kong, and is generally regarded as a reliable source for non-political and non-advertorial content in zhwiki through consensus. (See the zhwiki's List of Perennial sources) I am not sure why it was not recorded on his ISU profile, and why this discrepancy aroused. (Please enlighten me if you find out the reasons behind) But since no discussion in the enwiki had deemed Oriental untrustworthy, so I don't see why this source is questionable in this case and I tend to trust the independent and secondary RS. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 01:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That's interesting. I did see the article you cited and ran it through a translator. No idea why a first-place win would have been left off this skater's ISU profile. Nor is he cited on the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships chart for men's singles. I checked another reliable figure skating site, but they have no records for any of the Hong Kong championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Prince of Erebor Okay, I have added both skaters named in the article to the charts on the Hong Kong Figure Skating Championships article. I cannot find sourcing elsewhere, but I'm guessing 2008 was just when someone at Wikipedia started to keep track and no one bothered to go backwards. This AFD can be closed as Speedy keep. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bgsu98: Yea, I was thinking the same thing. After searching, I found some articles, as well as the ISU database you cited, recorded the Skating Championships dating back to at least 2003. However, the Hong Kong Skating Union website and Wikipedia only listed results up to 2008. It seems there was no systematic online archive of the championship results prior to 2008. Thanks for updating the article as well! I have made some minor corrections though, since Hong Kong uses Cantonese rather than Mandarin, the source should be labeled as written in Chinese, and the skater's name should be romanized using Jyutping instead of Mandarin pinyin. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never studied any languages east of Europe, so I'll trust your judgment! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:12, 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. Star Mississippi 01:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DXN (brand)

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

Upon a meticulous review of the DXN (brand) article, I propose it be considered for deletion for several compelling reasons:

Firstly, the article is excessively reliant on primary sources, including the company's own website, press releases, and internal documentation. This overdependence raises substantial concerns regarding the neutrality and verifiability of the information presented. Wikipedia's guidelines underscore the necessity of secondary sources to furnish an objective and thorough examination of the subject matter.

Secondly, the article is deficient in adequate third-party reliable sources that could independently corroborate the company's claims and establish its notability. For an article to adhere to Wikipedia's notability standards, it must be underpinned by significant coverage from reputable, independent sources. The present article fails to satisfy this criterion, thus undermining its credibility.

Moreover, the content of the article exhibits a promotional tone. DXN operates as a direct selling company, also recognised as multi-level marketing (MLM), which frequently prompts concerns about the legitimacy and ethical practices of such business models. The promotional nature of the article is likely to mislead readers into perceiving it as an endorsement rather than an impartial encyclopaedic entry. Wikipedia's neutrality policy dictates that articles should not function as advertisements or endorsements. LearnologyX (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Most of the sources cited are controlled by the company itself. Of the rest, Direct Selling News is a trade publication; DXN's mere presence on their list could be cited in an article, but doesn't establish notability. The only significant coverage here is from the Sri Lankan Daily News; that article is archived here. I have concerns that this is undisclosed paid news, like is common in Indian media. It certainly reads like a press release rather than independent reporting. For non-cited sources, quite a few about the company's products' purported health benefits are excluded by WP:MEDRS. Something like this Elsevier publication (p. 642) is a good start, but even I don't think this rises to significant coverage, and it seems I tend more liberal than consensus on that regard. I do not know enough about accessing Malaysian media to know if we're missing quality sources there. Lubal (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Creditability of Daily Express is in question when it is open to feature Video, Story on their website from the volunteers. There are two articles (1 & 2) published in the Daily Express that read more like press releases than news coverage. LearnologyX (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't mentioned the cited Daily Express source because I didn't think it did anything to establish notability, but I'm pretty sure it's just a repackaged press release anyway. Lubal (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Advertising, India, and Europe. LearnologyX (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The revision history for the article DXN (brand) demonstrates multiple significant issues that warrant its deletion. The article has been subject to numerous actions due to copyright violations, as indicated by the changes made to hide revisions under RD1 (Violations of copyright policy) on 11:21, 9 April 2021; 01:15, 8 April 2021; 00:08, 23 September 2020; and 14:16, 26 January 2020. Furthermore, the page was temporarily protected on 16:34, 27 November 2018, due to persistent sock puppetry, necessitating restrictions on editing to autoconfirmed or confirmed users. These recurring issues underscore significant non-compliance with Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability, reliable sourcing, and adherence to copyright law. Given the repeated infractions and the need for administrative intervention, deletion of the article is justified to uphold the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, an attempt to clean up criticism was made in the past, which can be another sign of advertising and an effort to maintain a good reputation for the brand, which was removed from the article. LearnologyX (talk) 17:08, 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 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoop (company)

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

~~Promotional article created by a COI editor Abeeralish. Mereutza (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mereutza (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked the nominator blocked for spamming and sockpuppetry. I wish to leave this discussion open for consideration though. MER-C 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Reliable sources may not be enough to establish notability. If more sources reliable per WP:RS, please ping me. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 11:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nut clarity

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

WP:NOTDICT --FMSky (talk) 07:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think prior to this nom, it was just a stub (so, as per the linked WP:NOTDICT: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry,"). I think this was a case of that, but in any case, I fleshed out the article to hopefully expand on it seeming like a dictionary entry. Soulbust (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty evident coverage of this term not just as a definition, but also as a phenomenon which has been discussed at length in plenty of reliable sources. If this is seriously in question, I'll come back and link several. BrigadierG (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Huh, wasn't sure, it appears to be notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, is substantial beyond a dictionary entry. Air on White (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [WP:SIGCOV|sufficient sources]] beyond a dicdef. Also, it is similar to, yet different from Anagnorisis. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a reasonable article to have. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:23, 5 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!} 07:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advitya

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. Can be mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability_organizations Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary coverage I can find, ineligible for coverage at that list per WP:CSC and the requirement for notability. BrigadierG (talk) 12:05, 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 06:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSKC-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Henyey

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

Has been tagged for notability for over a decade. -- Beland (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A few hits on similar names in Gscholar, but they could be anyone. I don't find much else for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Oaktree alludes to, sourcing seems pretty sparse to contribute to notability. They don't appear to pass the "average professor test" described over at WP:NPROF. KoA (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Saleem

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

fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for people. likely autobiographical. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The BLP currently relies on unreliable sources. Created by a SPA so likely COI. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Good find. 86.130.244.141 (talk) 00:40, 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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alma-0

AfDs for this article:

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

This fails WP: N. This page has a pretty unfortunate history with AfDs, but the issue of sourcing still remains. The papers that discuss the language in depth are primary, and its citations are brief mentions of the language itself. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see what has changed from the last three (!) AfDs, and the sources (of which there are nine) look okay to me. jp×g 🗯️ 01:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the AfD rationale, which points out that the sources are either primary or not in-depth? The previous AfDs discussed citation counts and number of hits on Google, which are not valid rationales for keeping an article. Similarly, the number of sources an article has doesn't have anything to do with whether it should be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Looking at the citations of the most cited paper, there is independent sigcov such as [21] and [22]. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your "independent sigcov" was authored by the same people who wrote the "most cited paper" that you're referring to. Those sources are not independent and cannot be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put a wrong link for [1], apologies. I meant to put [23]. [2] is still independent. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[2] was written by Brunekreef, who also was an author on the original paper proposing the language. It is a primary source. [3] is a very short paragraph in the related work section of a paper that doesn't actually build on top of Alma-0. It is not significant coverage. None of the sources you provided can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, weirdly the article lists him as Brunekree while the paper calls him Brunekeef. Interesting how a single letter can create such a large visual difference.
As long as something isn't trivial mention, it's significant coverage. The RAPID paper presents an entire paragraph of details to compare with RAPID built on top of them. You also still have the other results that cited the ALMA paper. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your claimed threshold for significance is arbitrarily low and self-serving. It needs to discuss the subject directly and in detail, and this source does neither. The "entire paragraph" you claim establishes notability discusses the subject in relation to another language (i.e. not directly) and is only a few sentences in a 13-page paper that discusses something else entirely (i.e. not in detail). You've also done nothing to show that the other results can establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses it directly and in detail. In the context of something else means that it's another topic, not that it's not directly. In fact, SIGCOV directly says that it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Just that it's "a few sentences" does not mean these sentences don't have detail. All normal paragraphs have just a few sentences (in this case, 6). The paragraph details Alma-0's semantics, nature, and statements.

Other sources include [24] which talks about how Alma-0 is "pure dynamic predicate logic". Aaron Liu (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I understand that it needs not be the primary subject of the article, but I still don't believe this discusses the subject directly. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Alma-0 is... Alma-0 uses dynamics in this way..." instead of "Apt made a language called Alma-0. Apt then got married." or "Dynamic languages include Alpha-G0, Alma-0, Aleph-0...", ergo it is direct.

I also don't think you can dispute [4]. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add those sources to the article? HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a problem with adding [4] because it has a ton of technical maths language I don't understand. The other one maybe. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've brought forth two sources that you failed to realize weren't secondary, a source that only meets your arbitrary standard of notability, and a source that you admitted you don't understand. I don't think there's much more of a discussion to be had here. If these are the best sources you could find, this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does me not understanding what [4] is saying have any bearing on it counting towards notability or not? We have a ton of technical topics, and they all meet notability. As far as I'm concerned, [3] only fails your arbitrary standard of directness notability. As long as something does not require OR to extract information and addresses the subject directly and in detail, it counts for SIGCOV. Just that a notable thing is niche doesn't mean we should not include it. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot possibly explain why a source establishes notability if you don't understand it, and the onus is on you to show that a source can establish notability. Anything else is a massive waste of time for people who nominate articles for deletion. I've also made clear arguments based on the text of the definition of notability that [3] does not provide significant coverage -- there is no arbitrariness here. Again, what is there that's left to discuss? HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your argument that bringing Alma-0 up for acknowledgement of inspiration isn't direct? Have you responded to #c-Aaron_Liu-20240531174600-HyperAccelerated-20240531171800, which shows how it is not just WP:TRIVIAL? Further, how would it be productive to delete this article? Have you seen the reasons the notability guideline exist? How does any of this impede us from having enough content to write articles if we get someone who understands formal computer science? I understand that the sources address the subject directly and in detail, and that is enough.
@JPxG, would you like to comment? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have sourcing guidelines, and this article cannot meet those standards, specifically WP: NSOFT. One paragraph in one paper cannot establish notability and you haven't actually shown that the source that you don't understand establishes notability in any of the eight messages you've written. The sourcing concern still remains, so this article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like what HA's asking for here is fairly extreme: the sources can't just talk about the programming language, they have to talk exclusively about the programming language, they have to do so in a way that's accessible to laymen, et cetera. I don't think we need to have whole textbooks written about a programming language for it to pass GNG.

It's worth noting that the original papers specifying the language are published in journals, which is not just some guy's random website -- it's an editorial process where multiple people signed off on this language being worthy of note and constituting a contribution to the field.

Overall, it just doesn't really seem to me like there's a reason to delete the article -- the guidelines are not normally interpreted in such a severe way -- and there's not a compelling reason to go out of our way to interpret them more severely here (there's no BLP issues, for example, and we're not getting paid cash bonuses based on how many AfDs close as delete). jp×g 🗯️ 21:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for evidence of significant coverage from multiple sources per WP: NSOFT. That could be a paper discussing extensions of Alma-0 by independent researchers or a book chapter about programming languages. One paragraph in one article does not meet that bar, and neither does an article, regardless of its length, that nobody here understands. The authority of these sources isn't under question. If this protracted discussion results in the improvement of the article, I am more than happy to withdraw this AfD. However, I have yet to see evidence of this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see an argument for why us being too unintelligent to understand the paper's maths discounts it from notability. NSOFT does not have any mention of that and I don't think anyone can disagree that it's direct and in detail. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, [25] summarized it as "how dynamic predicate logic provides an adequate semantics for a non-trivial fragment of Alma-0, and how inference tools for dynamic predicate logic become verification tools for the hybrid programming language". Might be helpful in the future. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 31 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!} 06:43, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Stojanović (footballer, born 2001)

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

fails general notablility guideline and notability guidelines for sportspeople. ltb d l (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. ltb d l (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. 18 apps for Rad in Serbia Superliga should be enough, so I suspect stuff is out there. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:36, 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 keep‎. The sources provided by DaffodilOcean have demonstrated notability. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Namaye

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

The first source is a blog, the 5th source is Twitter. Sources 2-4 are dead. Fails WP:BIO. No notability from the roles she has had. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable, just known as a police woman. From searches on google she still doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage of Namaye in the news, with the three best sources as follows [26],[27],[28]. These articles discuss her career path, her role in the police department, and cases she has been involved with. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean enable subject to pass WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:24, 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 06:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangrove Institute of Science and Technology

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSschool. Most of the references are from the institute’s website. The other link https://theorg.com/org/mangrove-institute-of-science-and-technology is from an internet directory. Wikilover3509 (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Science, Technology, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty underwhelming in terms of WP:NSCHOOL to the point I don't think there's much else to even say here. KoA (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Maine (restaurant)

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

Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. The sources mentioned seem like PR (matbe paid) rather than serious articles. Wikilover3509 (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links, but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, United Arab Emirates, and Maine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 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. Strong arguments on both sides, with no rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl 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; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 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) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY, some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list was almost entirely unsourced when it was nominated at AfD. In just a couple days of effort, some 70 sources (of varying quality) have been added. Combine the ongoing sourcing effort with the fact that this was for nearly a century one of the big three college football games (Rose, Orange, Sugar), I lean to keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect the article to improve though. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the sources and I'll chalk it up to this, IMDb is not a reliable source, press releases are WP:ROUTINE mentions, WP:NYPOST, and finally, there are some sources that are reliable, but do not provide the significant coverage that are necessary to sustain such a grouping. Therefore, it is within the topic of WP:LISTN, that my !vote remains. Conyo14 (talk) 07:06, 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 keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Space Marines (film)

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

The film is not notable in the sense that there are not multiple reliable sources having significant coverage about this topic. There is a review by The Washington Post here but nothing beyond that that I could find. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging already-involved editors Govvy, Atlantic306, and Mushy Yank. I had proposed deletion but Mushy Yank contested it on account of the review by The Washington Post. Started this AfD to see this through fully. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just deproDed the page. Meets requirement for notability with significant coverage in reliable sources including a full review in The Washington Post. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said you removed it because it had a review in The Washington Post? That does not equate plurality of reliable sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A review in the WP is enough to DEPROD a page, yes. But please read the comment I left on TP in the OldProd template. And also read the sources on the page. I've added various references. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Washington Post review was syndicated nationally; here's the review in The Newport News Daily Press. There are a lot more examples on newspapers.com. Toughpigs (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks, that's a good source. Any others you can share? I can go ahead and update the article with them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood. Doesn't the same coverage being repeated elsewhere still count as only one source? Are there more sources that are different from the WaPo review? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, WP:N says, "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
we still only have Washington Post as the only reliable source covering this film. No. Just read the page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you think these sources in the Wikipedia article are significant coverage. Here is a breakdown:
Regarding Off the Page, the film is only mentioned in passing, so it's not significant coverage.

For the other items, these are capsule reviews and not sufficient coverage. WP:NF says, "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides..." Such guides have many films with only one sentence about them.

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some coverage with critical commentary, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, borderline notable... I think it is fair to presume that if the WaPo wrote a full review of this 1996 film that additional coverage which would meet GNG exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Added some. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the sources added is for Space Cowboys and not this film, two others are what? Databases with no degree of help to the article, so that leaves one review which I couldn't read because of the paywall. And that really is only one source left in the article. It's hardly signov, my gut still tells me it's a delete unless there was something more. Govvy (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not on Space Cowboys. The Snippet is misleading. Read what I've quoted, it's about this film! (If you can't access the full page: Was Space Cowboys written by Moreland, and is it with Wirth?) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, the Washington Post is all I can find for reviews. Rotten Tomatoes has a "critic" review from rec.arts.movies, which is being rather generous [34] calling that a "critical review". I don't know if this is related [35], but most things that come up are about the Warhammer series. I don't see enough for film notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that film is unrelated. Added some coverage though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the Washington Post and Psychotronic Video reviews, there are also reviews in the Malay Mail, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald and the Hickory Daily Record. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as exercising WP:AGF as I don't have access to Proquest for the three above mentioned reviews but including them with the Washington Post and smaller coverage there seems to be enough for WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::A relist?~~ :D))))... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Fair enough, apologies, apparently there are other users who think it's not undue....[reply]

Comment I am happy to see a better article on wikipedia for this film since I raised the issue's on the project. I however am not seeing the best sources still. Besides the Washington Post, I really don't see enough from the other sources provided. So I really am still on the fence. Of the sources posted by Somebodyidkfkdt; the first Malay Mail, that seems to be talking about something else? Hint of Clinton scandal in `Wag The Dog? I am unable to verify the next Hawaii Tribune-Herald one, nor the Hickory Daily Record due to paywall. Govvy (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shales, Tom (1996-07-28). "'Space Marines' is frivolous but unexpectedly entertaining". Daily Press. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The movie might be just the thing, though, for people who've overdosed on NBC's effusive Olympics coverage or who just want a pleasant little brain purge to take their minds off serious matters. "Space Marines" involves death, terror, treachery and the threat of apocalypse, yet it's all kept on a sort of funsy level. An on-again off-again facetious approach is usually deadly in films, and "Space Marines" puts tongue in cheek mainly to disguise implausibilities in the plot. Even so, it's for the most part kookily entertaining. For a low-budget film, the explosions are pretty and the rocket ships moderately impressive. Wheee!"
2. Pasta, Elmer (1996-12-13). "Sylvester Stallone resurrects his hero role in disastrous 'Daylight'". Hawaii Tribune-Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: ""Space Marines" (Republic, rated R for excessive violence, sex and swearing) has impressive special effects for a relatively low-budget, direct-to-video sci-fi epic. But, this poor man's "Star Trek" has little more to offer than a basic, good-vs.-bad-guys plot with lots of ham overacting. ... The film-titled Space Marines begin a rescue-and-arrest mission that quickly turns into a volatile political situation. Ordered to return to base, but aware of the mounting threat to the galaxy's survival, the elite Marine Corps stages its own vigilante plan. It's easy to guess the predictable outcome, which includes a daring mutiny and eventual pirate confrontation. There's much futuristic space hardware in the meandering movie, including a spacecraft resembling a giant electric shaver. Even with that, over all, "Space Marines" hasn't got much buzz."
3. "Space Marines". Psychotronic Video. No. 24. p. 13. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The review notes: "In the future, Sgt. Zach (Billy Wirth), a politician (James Shigeta) and his assistant (Candy Huffman) are taken hostage by Col. Frasier (John Pyper-Ferguson, who adds a welcome sense of humor), a Marine turned space pirate. This sadistic, talkative long haired villain with a sidekick named Gunther and a gang that resembles bikers, cuts off a captives ear and blows up others with surgical implants. A grinning Edward Albert leads a rescue mission and argues a lot with a commander (Meg Foster). Although there are space ships and space battles, most of the slo mo deaths, explosions and gun battles take place in a James Bond type cavern/factory. Also with subplots, silicone packed hologram bar dancers and an especially weak ending. Surprisingly, it was made in Dallas - by the director of Private Wars (PV #17)."
4. Chua, Eddie (1998-08-27). "Hint of Clinton scandal in 'Wag The Dog'". Malay Mail. ProQuest 326166555.
  The review notes: "He sends highly-trained Space Marines, led by Captain Gray (Edward Albert), to stop the pirates' evil plans. And if you love fighting stuff and laser guns, then Space Marines is for you. The special effects, however, are not too exciting. There is nothing extravagant about it. The spaceships look like gigantic electric razors and the aircraft seems to have came out of a cereal box. Although veteran Meg Foster is the biggest name in this film, his performances did not stand out. Billy Wirth, who plays a not so bright Marine, is worth watching. Pyper-Ferguson plays an over-the-top performance as the pirate leader."
5. Sumner, Jane (1995-06-16). "'Space Marines' lands in Farmers Branch warehouse". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06.
  The article notes: "If he ever got into a position of consequence in this business, Matthew Trotter vowed, he'd shoot a film in Texas. With Space Marines, a sci-fi action flick, he's been doing just that in a Farmers Branch warehouse since May 9. ... In from Los Angeles for the shoot were Billy Wirth (The Lost Boys), Meg Foster (They Live), James Shigeta (Die Hard), Jay P. Ferguson (Unforgiven) and Edward Albert (Getting Even). Local actors in the cast include Sean McGraw, Sean Hennigan and Angie Bolling. For the interiors, construction coordinator Byron Autrey and his crew reworked some of the sets from the failed TV pilot Island City."
6. Socias, Sebastien (June 1998). "Space Marines". L'Écran fantastique (in French). p. 84. EBSCOhost 170094243.
  EBSCO Information Services provides an abstract-only record, not a full text of the review.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Space Marines to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

85th Plenary Session of the Indian National Congress

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

Fails WP:N, not a notable event. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 17:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, India, and Chhattisgarh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Based on my check, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability, but I couldn’t find any. The sources I found were just passing mentions and cannot meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 18:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC) * Delete. 3 sources on the page and none have significant coverage to warrant a full fledged page on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs substantial cleanup but as the second-largest political party by membership in the democratic world a meeting like this is likely to be notable, in a similar sense to 2024 Democratic National Convention. We even have an article for the tiny 2024 Libertarian National Convention. The US Libertarian Party has less than 1 million members, the Indian National Congress has 95 million. I've conducted a few quick searches and located quite a bit of coverage from national newspapers in India such as this from The Hindu and this from the Times of India. Google News searches produce a lot of results, too. It appears the conference was quite significant for the party based on the coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Times of India can’t establish notability at all as per WP:TOI GrabUp - Talk 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from a quick glance there is ample in-depth coverage in English media outlets. There is scope to expand the article, and outline the policy shifts that materialized in or through the event. It's worth noting that this is the national convention of a party that pulled 119 million votes in the last national election. --Soman (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - examples of in-depth coverage at India Today, NDTV, National Herald, The Wire, Business Standard, Business Standard, The Hindu, Hindustan Times. --Soman (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Thanks for sharing these sources, Maybe my BEFORE was not great enought like you. I am convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I too changed vote but to Draftify as the page needs major work with all reliable sources given by Soman and AusLondonder. If we just vote for Keep, then no guarantee if anyone will improve the page. Creator of the page can take the feedback from here, improve the page and republish it. RangersRus (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National Herald is a Congress Party linked Newspaper. Does it qualify for a neutral, Independent reference source? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. After looking at search work by AusLondonder and Soman, page has potential to pass WP:GNG with some cleanup and expansion with reliable sources. Voting for page to Draftify for creator and other interested editors to improve the page and then submit for review to be published. RangersRus (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Draftify is not intended as incubation for expansions. This article is a mini-stub, but a perfectly legitimate stub. There is no material in the current version of the article that warrants it to be draftified. See Wikipedia:Drafts#Moving_articles_to_draftspace. --Soman (talk) 11:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AusLondonder and Soman. Draftifying here is unnecessary, the article has no serious content issues (other than being too short). Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memoona Qudoos

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

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. ROTM coverage like this, this and even INTERVIEWS like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is notable. In this source her education and how she started is all mentioned [36] and her married life source in this [37].(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not talking about WP:V. I am saying that it meets WP:NACTOR. It has mentioned her drama roles and her recent role of Shehna.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    - BeauSuzanne, Could you provide evidence that the subject had major roles? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because the interviews in rather reliable sources have a presentation that might show her roles are signficant. If not why not DRAFTITY until better sources are found, so as to avoid the risk of constant recreations/deletion and mutual frustration?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Roznama92News isn't even a RS. It's just one of the countless Urdu language newspapers circulated in Pakistan. And I wouldn't outright label the interview in The News as a paid placement since I lack evidence, but considering the nature of the questions posed by the interviewer, it's a plausible possibility. Anyhow, I'm fine with DRAFITIFICATION, though. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clean up shouldn't be deletion. Appearing in multiple notable films meets WP:NACTOR though requires whether it is significant or not (though should be); it is a known role in the films. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SafariScribe, Fwiw - In Pakistani TV dramas, supporting roles do not have the same level of significance as in Western or even Indian TV series. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Then a policy should be initiated in Wikipedia:Village pump. Fwiw also, supporting roles can be notable when it has been done for multiple times. Why then do you see a supporting actor or actress awards? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  SafariScribe, But the fact is she hasn't even really had any supporting roles in the series she's been in so far. No one's provided any evidence for it, not even for dramas like GT Road, Guddu, Farq, Nikah, Kalank, Umm-e-Haniya, and Jaisay Aapki Marzi, which she's known for. So, it seems she's just part of the ensemble cast. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not convinced that the GNG or NACTOR have been met. Keep counterarguments have been unconvincing, so I am inclined to side with the nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:56, 7 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!} 04:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHBA-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 24 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!} 04:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article should have never been created to begin with. Catfurball (talk) 15:15, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Braakman

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has some decent coverage at [[38]] and [[39]]. Not a ton here but probably enough to pass the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:01, 11 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!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 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!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 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. ✗plicit 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Nagle (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An obit here, as well as coverage in the New York Times here and here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:39, 18 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!} 02:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per source presented by Beanie fan. I think it's unusual nominating articles because they are short. WP:NSKATE is an additional Wikipedia policy. If per the sources they the articles won those awards, then he meets WP:ANYBIO and sources per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. please do run WP:BEFORE and not bypass it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Moir

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[40]], [[41]] and [[42]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:16, 11 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!} 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:40, 18 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!} 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Mitsuoka

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with the SkateToday article already in the article in addition to [[43]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 11 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!} 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:40, 18 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!} 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a living subject and the best we can find is one connected source (faph.org) and one interview (SkateToday), both from when she was a junior in high school 16 years ago? That's all? WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least one RS which directly details the subject. Nothing close to that here. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have long felt that none of this qualifies as “significant coverage” when I keep getting chewed out for these AFD’s. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails NSKATE. The one SkateToday article, while impressive, is the only SIGCOV I've been able to find towards GNG. The other source linked by Let'srun doesn't count towards the GNG as it isn't independent or sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 7 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 23:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan McColl

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Africa. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 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!} 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 18 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!} 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There isn't any credible source to meet WP:GNG. The gross lacking in WP:SIGCOV made it difficult in popping any result for WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 3 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 06:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Meng (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient independent coverage.--Wish for Good (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wish for Good, are you going to share with the rest of the class or should we just take your word for it? Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:18, 31 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!} 02:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:43, 18 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!} 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wishfully thinking keep assertions don't put a subject past GNG, ANYBIO, or WP:SPORTSPERSON (which requires at least one source which directly details the subject). Such sourcing hasn't been applied, presented or found. BusterD (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the requisite WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Andrew Cuomo

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

this article can probably be deleted and it's information merged with the Andrew Cuomo article since the US state governors seem to generally not have separate pages outlining their political positions CGP05 (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge. The Andrew Cuomo article is pretty long so I understand the idea of a split. If this article was expanded significantly I would change to keep. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Short and also largely duplicative. Split wasn't needed, or at least not done like this. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as pointed out by others, Andrew Cuomo is waaay too long already. This page isn't perfect, but I think we can keep it. Toadspike [Talk] 17:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toadspike — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep When I created this page, Cuomo was considered to have a big future in government and politics. Within a few years, his career was essentially totally over. I still think there is historic validity to a Political Positions page and it will shorten how much text is on the page, but there is no great strength to the page existing on its own anymore. PickleG13 (talk) 23:22, 29 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!} 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since the main Andrew Cuomo page could do with being shortened and cut up already. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:46, 4 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 13:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Purdy

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, this fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a seeming lack of WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if significant coverage is found. Let'srun (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 18 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!} 02:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am certain that this article didn't meet WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT and sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:06, 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 23:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zsolt Kosz

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know much about WP:NSKATE but for WP:SPORTSBIO and WP:GNG, this is not notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:38, 24 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!} 02:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 18:16, 3 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!} 08:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Marine Rouffanche

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 18 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!} 02:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NCREATIVE. An ice dancer who qualified for the World Junior Championship's free dance competition and finished 15th: an achievement truly admirable by this humble servant, but insufficient for a Wikipedia article. Whence the required numerous, independent sources? -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 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 merge‎ to RAF Barkston Heath. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. 674 Squadron AAC

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

Insufficient independent references to prove notability. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, and United Kingdom. PercyPigUK (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge as it appears to be notable but heavily relies on a single sourcing from RAF. So It could have been a strong keep only if there were more sources for this article. Although merging in Royal Air Force is always an option. Based Kashmiri ^TALK 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to RAF Barkston Heath. The squadron has only existed there, so its history forms part of the history of the station. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:15, 24 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!} 04:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RAF Barkston Heath. User:Hamterous1 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️)} 18:24, 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. ✗plicit 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Rochecouste

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of The 3 sources are primary. A Google News search yielded nothing in-depth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Portugal, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable like the other article. Fails WP:BIO too. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:17, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Aeschliman

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

This is another sockpuppet production from the same drawer that brought us Conrad Hughes. After socks were blocked, I removed all primary sources before nominating. This subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. There's no sustained reliable coverage significantly about this subject indicating his encyclopedic notability. There was lots of primary stuff, by related parties. Now it's two books. If one is notable, it might need an article instead of a socky BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Italy, Switzerland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, with redirection also being an option if anyone other than a blocked sock is interested in making a stub on the notable book. I see a notable book with reviews (and also respectable citations in a low citation field), but little other evidence of notability. WP:BLP1E at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the problems of puffery and COI authoring etc before the gutting of the entry ... he seems to me to pass WP:Author as his book has been primary subject of multiple independent reviews and an article on him might therefor be useful. An article on the book would seem to me odd, but a brief article on the author mentioning the books would seems OK. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Had another look (thanks to User:JoelleJay's ping) and think the book's publishers WE & DI and reviews in some marginal journals raise enough fringish worries to make my keep based on the book not so wise. Perhaps he is more known as a journalist in the National Review but notability is not so clear enough to me to justify. Preface by Malcolm Muggeridge to, and praise from Rowan Williams for, the book were the things that I now think mislead me. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This is about a "survey" (as the book is self-described) published in 2019 by "Discovery Institute," a Seattle-based think tank, which was later translated into French. At the risk of stating the obvious, if the guide or the author were notable, sockpuppets and primary sources wouldn't have been necessary for the article creation. The guide reviews aren't found in reliable sources and appear (as is sometimes the case with unknown manuals) to be provided by the author's associates. There don't appear to be any reliable sources for the author either. In addition to failing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR, the article reads like a peacock marketing piece that runs into further WP:GNG problems when considering a ten-year or twenty-year test. 174.197.67.208 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per FRINGE and our notability guidelines. As noted above, this guy is affiliated[44] with the Discovery Institute, a disinformation-spewing intelligent design think tank. The Restoration edition is not reliably published -- it went through Discovery Institute Press,[45] a fact that is strangely absent from the article. Its reviews include several in unreliable sources like Evolution News (DI magazine) and/or do not satisfy WP:FRIND's criterion (bolded) The best sources to use when describing fringe theories, and in determining their notability and prominence, are independent reliable sources, outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself. The Le Figaro review might be acceptable, but one review is definitely not sufficient for an unreliably-published fringe book.
The earlier Restitution edition went through a non-academic Christian publisher that doesn't seem inherently unreliable, and some of its reviews are in reliable (if biased) journals, so it's possible an article could be written on it and the biography title redirected to it. While it is sometimes preferable to cover multiple marginally-notable books (or one notable book and one or more related marginal ones) by the same author in a biography page rather than in separate weak pages (or not at all), I don't think Restoration is sufficiently distinct from its precursor to use this as justification for a biography. Moreover, I do not think a biography would be appropriate when a) all IRS SIGCOV is of the author's works and b) the non-independent/primary material we would normally use to fill out a biography on an academic will necessarily be sourced to fringe orgs and thus be overtly non-neutral. Ping @Msrasnw. Also ping @David Eppstein as someone more experienced with NAUTHOR/humanities cases, which I normally avoid. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For me, one book (even in multiple editions) is never enough for WP:AUTHOR, and there appears to be no evidence of WP:PROF notability. No objection to redirecting to an article on the book, if anyone cares to make an article on the book. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter to me that the book takes a fringe anti-science position, whether it is reliably published, or whether the reviews are positive or negative; all that matters for AUTHOR or for notability of the book is the number and depth of mainstream (per WP:FRINGE) reliably published reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One book is not enough to support an author biography, in all but the most exceptional cases (say, if that one book had become the standard text for a mainstream university course). An article on the book itself is possible in principle, if multiple reviews exist that can truly be said to come from outside the fringe bubble. That's a separate discussion, however. XOR'easter (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Twisted (software)#Applications using Twisted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevow

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

Fails WP: N. All of the sources that are currently on the page are either primary or don't provide in-depth coverage. I found a 2005 book that gives a short example of how to use Nevow and a few others that mention it in passing, but this isn't enough to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:15, 24 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!} 02:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Twisted (software)#Applications using Twisted. There are three books that meet SIGCOV about Nevow, but two of them have the same publisher (and theme) and they don't provide much information, and all of them mention it as a great add-on to Twisted. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:41, 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 delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Sol-song

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV without enough international experience to supplant that fact. Anwegmann (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Kwang

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – With only database source listed, this article is absolutely unacceptable! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails without enough international experience to make up for it. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Jong-chul

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Nothing here. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean excrement balloon incident

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

I nominated for deletion; think the content of the article should be merged into Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. Reasoning: there's just not much else to say about this incident other than what's in the few news articles about it. It falls into the context of the balloon propaganda campaign, and doesn't have enough separate notability imo. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, multiple news sources have had articles about it, including Reuters, (https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-alert-balloons-dropping-trash-north-2024-05-29/) BBC, (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4nn2p32zrzo.amp) CNN, (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/29/asia/north-korea-trash-balloons-intl-hnk) CBS, (https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/north-korea-south-korea-trash-balloons/) and NBC. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna154435) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MountainDew20 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For others reading, note that I had posted on the talk page with the deletion nomination because I am an IP user and can't create pages. This user created the deletion discussion page, and I'm not sure if they saw my post (verbatim matches the current deletion nom rationale) before making this comment.

Now direct response to this comment: my point is not that the event doesn't have coverage, my point is that the event is not independently significant enough from the Balloon propaganda campaigns page to merit its own article. WP:NOPAGE is relevant I think here.

Note WP:NSUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP. I think you can make an argument that we should wait a bit more to see if coverage is separate enough: maybe this sparks a huge diplomatic incident with significant consequences. But I'm doubtful that will happen; worse events have happened with basically zero meaningful change to inter-Korean relations. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I pull up coverage in Reuters, NBC News, The Independent and what's given now in the article. This incident seems to be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to say, as the balloons also contained CD's and leaflets, in addition to all the other stuff mentioned [46]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Separately notable from what's in the Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea article? And to clarify, I wasn't trying to say the excrement balloon article can't be expanded more. I was trying to say that, based on the news articles, there's not much more to say that differs from the balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea article. The overlap is really significant. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 02:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or !merge, I'm not fussed about it. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: WP:NEVENTS applies, but without getting too into the weeds wrt that guideline, this event belongs contextually at Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea#North Korean counter-campaigns as this is a direct response to recent South Korean balloon campaigns, with North Korea stating that it would retaliate against the "frequent scattering of leaflets and other rubbish" in border areas by activists in the South. // "Mounds of wastepaper and filth will soon be scattered over the border areas and the interior of the ROK and it will directly experience how much effort is required to remove them"[47]. Also: the article name is really not ideal as under 10% of the balloons appear to have contained excrement. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOPAGE. Also, WP:NOTNEWS given that this happened just yesterday. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; not independently notable enough. Zanahary (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, North Korea, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as despite coverage from major media companies, it's yet another example of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 18:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - while it is marginally notable, a merger back would allow for better context. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gatonga

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

Another questionable African business executive resume masquerading as an article. There is only one possible RS in this piece for to establish notability, a profile in the Standard, and many editors may consider it to be disqualified as an interview. All other sources, here and in BEFORE search, are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:PRESSRELEASES or other primary sources. Not enough significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources to clear notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kenya. Skynxnex (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hughes

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

This article is a sockpuppet production. After the sock was blocked, I removed all primary sources. I was left with only two, one of which has the subject talking about another topic (his school) in an interview. This subject appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:NAUTHOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Please see history for an extensive record of puffery. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah--this is where this came from: a socking case of COI-puffery. JFHJr, in such cases, don't even bother cleaning up the article; not doing so makes the fluff stand out nicely. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I try to present each specimen in its most favorable light. And without extraneous reading. Anyone wondering about the application of my edits can see the history. Thank you for your comment. I always appreciate your input. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  For everyone's consideration and time-sinking availability, this version is what we are talking about. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  ~~I'm opposed to you wanting to delete this article. Looks like an attempt at illegitimate blanking.~~ Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I am also opposed, who is crossing out wikipedia user's statements? Jane asia (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  
  Same question! Why are Wikipedia user statements being crossed out? I'm genuinely curious as to why someone would be so determined to delete an article about a legitimate, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, South Africa, Switzerland, and United Kingdom. Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Independent coverage seems to be limited. Deb (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not really, in the article you took down there were at least 10 independent references and there are many more out there, just look through the web!~~ 213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm left wondering: who is striking through Wikipedia user's statements, and for what reason?? Annabella25 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~I was surprised to see the previous article removed. Dr Hughes is well known in international education. Have you googled him? Why should the article be reduced or deleted, according to who?~~ 213.55.220.222 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is not removed, and "well known" should be supported by reliable secondary sources. "Have you googled him" is not a reasonable or helpful question to ask. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's easy to find articles on him:
  
  https://www.k12digest.com/designing-and-implementing-educational-systems-for-the-future/
  
  https://www.internationalschoolparent.com/articles/interview-with-dr-conrad-hughes-ecole-internationale-de-geneve-ecolint/
  
  https://www.letemps.ch/economie/chatgpt-fait-son-chemin-dans-les-ecoles-privees
  
  Have you seen all the things he's published with UNESCO?
  
  It seems a bit weird to want to remove him, is there some personal vendetta going on here?
  
  - Lefka1 (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  That's two interviews (WP:BLPSPS) and coverage that includes Hughes talking about a different topic (the in-depth coverage is not about Hughes but AI in private schools). How does that approach WP:ANYBIO? JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~So why are you deleting those two interviews? In the article you removed there were lots of sources~~ Wikiviewer2 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Wikiviewer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  The interviews have not been deleted. They're still at their URLs for anyone who googles this subject to find. JFHJr (㊟) 22:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  He has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in education, just by his publications for the World Economic Forum, Springer, The Conversation, his doctoral research, and dozens of articles. He's a well respected scholar. This alone meets WP:ANYBIO Lefka1 (talk) 22:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC) — Lefka1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  I agree! Now, I'm genuinely curious about the motivation behind someone's relentless effort to delete an article about a reputable, leading practitioner in the field of international education. Annabella25 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  You or whoever removed the first article took out lots of independent references. There's an interview with the International Baccalaureate for example. That's not a primary source, why are you removing it? There was also an article in the TES about him and by Cambridge's SHAPE. I am opposed to your proposal to delete this. 213.55.220.222 (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm about to block a socking account. The nay-sayers here likely have conflicts of interest, but worse than that they lack a proper understanding of what Wikipedia is and what the processes are. Interviews and whatnot do not count towards notability. If there is an "enduring historical record in education", there will be secondary sources that say that. That someone published articles also does not make them notable--unless others have written about those articles. If there's any more socking, this AfD will be semi-protected. Oh, Lefka1, if you make any more comments about "personal vendetta" or whatever, I will happily block you too. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I'm intrigued by the controversy surrounding this article. I have no axe to grind about Hughes, one way or another, and I don't necessarily espouse his views, but - whether one likes it or not - he is unquestionably prominent and influential in international education, and increasingly so. Are the editors who propose the deletion of the article familiar with this field?

International educators throughout the world would be puzzled to hear that quite a small article devoted to Hughes has been earmarked for deletion, on the grounds of insufficient notability. An article providing some basic, sober information, free of "puffery", about who Hughes is and does fulfills Wikipedia's responsibility to inform its vast reading public, in an objective and neutral manner, about noteworthy people and topics, with the support of solid citations. I can't say I care enough about the Hughes article to do extensive research on its behalf, but as far as secondary sources go, you might look at the reputed TES journal (29 May 2020, "Rethinking school: a special issue", by Alistair McConville), the McKay interview with Hughes on World Radio Switzerland (29 February 2024), or the June 2024 "Formation" supplement ("Ces écoles centenaires") of Bilan magazine, page 4). So my advice, as an experienced Wikipedia reader (though not editor) would be DO NOT DELETE. All those in the field of international education understand why there is an article about Hughes in Wikipedia, regardless of whether they share his well-known educational goals.

By the way, I notice that some previous contributions to this discussion have been crossed out. Why, by whom, and on what authority? Those deleted comments are somewhat assertive, but by no means rude or irresponsible. I hope that this is not how Wikipedia functions, with certain editors censoring the reasonable contributions of others. 83.79.254.53 (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - You were blocked as User:Tamara Santerra pursuant to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove and now you're participating in this discussion logged out (block evasion). Why do you think it's okay for you to continue trying to participate here? (pinging @Bbb23: if you have 30 seconds for followup, as blocking admin for Tamara) JFHJr (㊟) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've heard this speaker in conferences, he's well know in international education circles. But when I go to wikipedia I see someone is trying to delete the page. I am opposed to this page being deleted. Jane asia (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC) — Jane asia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- @Drmies, since your comment re page protection, we've gotten 2 new SPAs here, 1 more SPA at this page's talk; a blocked sock trying to vote here as an IP; a second IP that certainly belongs to one of the others; and more talk about a personal bias motivation (vendetta). If you have time today, could you please SPP this discussion? Any feedback is appreciated. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - JFHJr, just let it roll. Don't respond. Tag them as SPAs if you like, and straighten out their indenting. I ran CU on a couple and they're all roughly in the same area, but not enough for me to block them on technical grounds. I bet this will all be over soon. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing no evidence that article's subject is sufficiently notable re: WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR.The article itself is quite poor.Boredintheevening (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Hughes is a widely known figure in international education. To anybody who is knowledgeable about this field, that's obvious. I'm surprised that this can be such a controversial issue. Basic research about Hughes will confirm his notability. 77.59.138.101 (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion proposal is not controversial. It does not require controversy to happen. Just a crappy article and crappy sources. The only controversy here is all the WP:SOCKs, who are apparently determined to edit logged-out after blocks (editing logged-out is much like editing naked, leaves very little in doubt). You're making it much easier to tie a single sock to multiple IPs, so thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Dr. Hughes is a prominent figure in international education, widely respected for his significant contributions. He has authored two important books and numerous articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and he leads one of the oldest and most esteemed international schools in the world. His direct involvement with UNESCO and other international organizations, as well as his frequent invitations as a keynote speaker to global events, further underscore his expertise and influence in the field. Moreover, he holds two PhDs! Any attempt to delete his Wikipedia article may be motivated by personal bias rather than factual grounds. It's deeply troubling and shameful to witness someone of such high regard being placed in such a situation. Annabella25 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Annabella25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete – WP:ANYBIO is clearly not met, and I can't see how he meets WP:NACADEMIC either. As pointed out (repeatedly) above, secondary sources are required, and they simply aren't there. --bonadea contributions talk 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best case for notability is via NAUTHOR, but this would require multiple reviews of multiple works in reliable sources. Reviews are not evident, and I did not find them on my search; noting that searching is complicated by the subject's common name. The history of sockpuppetry and promotionalism here is indeed concerning. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Falls short of WP:GNG (the one Tribune de Genève article) and of WP:AUTHOR (I could only find two reviews of one book [48] [49]). Weak because he's partway there on both criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Two interviews are not enough. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have been taught at schools with IB and other independent ("private" or "prep") school for 5 years. I have never heard of him. He is not known world-wide, or at least not in New York City. 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

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 01:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't still get what you call PR. Though it may seem, but can't we check WP:BEFORE or any other way. This dawn.com author is a reporter per the articles written for the reliable news source. There is this from GBooks. In a search on news, I got many pop ups.here. All these are resourceful ways of checking the credibility of an article particularly to this one that focuses on Cancer(pharmaceutical) perhaps or whatever. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SafariScribe, But it's mostly either trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. But GNG requires significant/in-depth coverage, which I haven't been able to find so far. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing but passing mentions in all sources at the article or linked in this discussion. Just because someone gave a speech there, or an awareness walk started there [50], doesn't mean that the institute itself is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 11:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NONPROFIT. Government-funded institute focused on nuclear medicine. Nuclear technology-related articles are very notable in Pakistan case due to the amount of scruitny these projects face. There is a lot of coverage in academic journals about this topic. I found such in-depth article from an academic journal (Cutaneous malignant tumors: a profile of ten years at LINAR, Larkana-Pakistan). 2A04:4A43:897F:FEC5:F491:C67:1C73:8215 (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was founded in 1956 so there is a lot of covereage in pre-internet offline references. A simple search on Google is not useful in such cases. Additional coverage here ([51]) Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy was in February reported to have sunk into grave disarray , with broken windowpanes , faulty drainage , poor sanitation and a shortage of staff and facilities seriously hampering... 2A04:4A43:96AF:FD5A:2833:13AD:96A9:2A1F (talk) 13:40, 7 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 Drafify‎. Star Mississippi 01:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of country subdivision flags in Africa

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

Wholly unsourced, WP:NOTGALLERY * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Commons. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify this and the related articles, too. So, I don't think there's any way to discuss this in isolation. This was sectioned off from List of country subdivision flags due to ongoing concerns about that article's size and load times, as were the Europe, North America, and South America subtopics. The Oceania subpage was evidently Draftified. With all that said, I'm really conflicted here. The most recent AFD for the parent article closed as Keep and offered some suggestions as to how to make it more functional... not that any of those were ever implemented. On one hand, the flags of first- and second-order political subdivisions makes for a pretty well-formed list topic and ought to pass WP:LISTCRIT. Although evidently not actually policy, it's certainly in line with Wikipedia:Gazetteer. On the other hand, there's been absolutely no effort to ensure that these flags are accurate or that only official flags are included (indeed, by the main topic's plain text, that's not the case, and there's nothing to indicate which are which). I think the goal here is laudable; I think the execution is incompatible with policy. To make this work, an ambitious editor (not it!) would need to start with a list of the qualifying political subdivisons (in order to know what the list should include), then go one by one through them to source the flag, including what we've got if that's accurate or correcting it if not (and, in cases where political subdivisions do not have flags by official policy, including and sourcing that). Oh, and the debate about how this should be presented (gallery-style or list-icon-style or some third option) would need to be put to rest, too. That's a huge workload that's ill-suited to being handled in place. One of the component pieces has already been Draftified; that's compelling enough reason to move the rest. Lubal (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reasons with regards to my actions:
1. I use image galleries instead of templates, as they are easier to edit and require less data to store, thus load times for articles is less.
2. I am aware of the request to cite sources for the flags. I have tried finding credible sources, so far only being successful in citing Argentina. I request help for the rest.
3. Some images came from me moving galleries from the main list to the continent lists. Others came from looking at the flags listed in lists for each country. That is why they are not cited.
I hope these points clarify how we got to where we are. For the nth time (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. Orientls (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The potential OR concerns worry me, surely those Liberian flags do not look like that... Traumnovelle (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Liberian flags aren't the problem. They look weird to most of us due to systemic bias; they're derived from design traditions in native quilting rather than Eurocentric heraldry. There was an entire scholarly article about them in Raven: A Journal of Vexillology, which is viewable at this archive link. Lubal (talk) 13:20, 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. Star Mississippi 01:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson, Indiana

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

Here we have a puzzle. There are two data implying that this a rail point. First, the label starts out right next to the tracks before drifting south on more recent maps, towards a string of houses on Rt. 60. Second, GMaps informs us that the name of the road that crosses the tracks at this point is named "Wilson Switch Rd." Against this I have, well, nothing, because searching is pretty much hopeless. The question is whether that string of houses is now known as Wilson or not, and here I draw a blank. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting one, partly because there seem to be multiple names associated with the same location. A 1908 map identifies the settlement as "Dallas", while others like this plat map show it as "Wilson". (An 1875 map gives it as "Wilson Station" and notes an accompanying mill.) When time permits I'll aim to check the local histories in more detail, but the fact that it's been consistently present on area maps for the last 150 years suggests it was at one point an actual settlement, so for now I think it's best to keep it. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for just Wilson got me nowhere, so I tried Wilson Switch, and I got some interesting results. A 1973 story about sales tax called Wilson Switch a community of 300, but this 1991 story about the local landfill just refers to the locals as "Wilson Switch Road residents", as do later stories about landfill projects. Earlier mentions of Wilson Switch were mostly about car accidents or railway incidents in the area, which doesn't clarify much. Wilson is still on the latest Indiana state highway map, though I don't know how thorough Indiana is about vetting small communities. Not sure which way I lean on this one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can still sleep at night if this is deleted. It's Rail station on the C., I. & L. (Monon) Railway [52], this same source explains that the post office was called Dallas. Lest we not forgot that old post offices were one word names, and were not required to share a name with their location. Huwmanbeing's observation that it is variously known as Dallas, Wilson's switch, and Wilson suggests it doesn't have a strong identity and that people were just referring to the landmarks as a way of being clear about locations. That book I cite above would use the place as a reference if it actually existed. Google snippets from this source [53] states the area around the switch was known as Dallas, and later Wilson, and is an "Unplatted village". I believe that source is just assuming that the place was called Dallas because of the post office at or near the train station. The name Wilson is almost certainly taken from the station, and post office was probably just that. The local paper only has mentions of for about 20 or so years starting 1942. Just life activities of people living near it. The satellite imagery would be very different if some sort population center had existed there in the twentieth century. Be careful researching it, it's not the only rail infrastructure with this name.James.folsom (talk) 22:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:07, 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.

[1] Annual Report of the Yorkshire Philsophical Society MDCCCL

[1]