Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 26	April 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Computer network naming scheme[edit]

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

It's self-evident that people who have a bunch of computers and want to assign them names according to some sort of system do so, and that the systems are completely arbitrary, and that they are often inconsistently followed, and that people who aren't into naming systems either don't give them names or pick an arbitrary name each time if they have to. It's just not a subject, period, much less encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is poorly written as is, and shouldn't focus so much on personal naming schemes, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. The Domain Name System is the most prominent naming scheme, and there are other minor examples, such as the GNU Name System, and naming systems for Content centric networking (e.g. [1]). There needs to be an article on the general topic. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a name for this class of things? If I search for this exact phrase, I get six GHits, which either make no sense or still seem to depend on this WP article. Also, it seems to me that GNU Name System is simply a GNUish implementation of DNS, and that CCN doesn't even align with the notion of naming at all. Even ignoring the need for WP:TNT, I'm not convinced that this article name is the proper stating point, or even that thee is a thing to write an article about. Mangoe (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ferrier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a writer and musician, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or musicians. This was previously deleted in 2019 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Ferrier and then got recreated in fall 2023 after his death, but this version is still referenced almost entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all -- even the one footnote that's technically citing a newspaper is still just his paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds, not a journalist-written news story about his death, and virtually everything else is content self-published by companies or organizations he was directly affiliated with, while the one potentially acceptable source (LitLive) is not enough to clinch passage of GNG all by itself.
And for notability claims, there are statements (a minor literary award, presidency of an organization) that might count for something if they were sourced properly, but there's still absolutely nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him an automatic notability freebie in the absence of proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing.
And the French interlang is based entirely on the same poor sourcing as this one, so it has no GNG-worthy footnotes that can be copied over to salvage this either. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French language sources aren't poor, they're excellent. Passes GNG easily on this basis. Desertarun (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has plenty of references so it seems like coverage is enough to pass notability guidelines. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Jobe[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a French rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - professional footballer who played at the elite level, multiple sources to prove that fact.Fleets (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV, which is required to be cited in the article for all sportspeople. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided (leaning keep/move to draft): Young Catalans player and will likely have more coverage later in his career. Should be expanded, but currently not sufficient coverage. Mn1548 (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that there is not sufficient coverage? JTtheOG (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite–Ukrainian War (1658–1659)[edit]

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

No such war in literature, it was part of the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667). This article is OR Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Marcelus (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to be mentioned here but the odds are this is not reliable and copied from Wikipedia. Possibly mentioned under other names in English, Polish, Ukrainian, Russian. Polish name is not mentioned, can anyone report on the queries in Russian and Ukrainian and analyze sources used in the respective articles on ru and uk wikis, if any (sources; articles exist)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears notable. Sources exist e.g. this and this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly re-title. We have an article on The Ruin (Ukrainian history). This would be a sub-article. I do personally find the use of "Muscovy" and "Ukraine" in this context a tad jarring. We seem to be very inconsistent in our terminology for early modern East Slavic states. There is an open access anthology on the battle of Konotop (1659) wherein Serhii Plokhy uses "Muscovite-Cossack war". Srnec (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Google Scholar returns 2 results for "Muscovite-Ukrainian War" and 9 results for "Ukrainian-Muscovite War", of which only 1 refers to 1658. Clearly a new title is needed in this case and this seems to fall under the Ruin and Russo-Polish War articles (which are sorely lacking details for this period). Even the Ukrainian-language sources cited use "Russian-Ukrainian war" and this looks like to have been the original title on the Ukrainian Wikipedia before it was moved. In my opinion this looks like revisionist history referring to an uprising led by Ivan Vyhovsky (a pro-Polish hetman). For example this source says: "Khmel'nitskii died in 1657, and Poland and the new Cossack leader, Vygovskii, now accepted Polish lordship over Ukraine. Vygovskii joined Poland in the resumption of war with Russia in October 1658... But in Ukraine, Cossacks of the Left Bank... rebelled against Vygovskii's pro-Polish alliance... Vygovskii fled to Poland, and Trubetskoi marched to Pereiaslavl', where he persuaded the Left Bank Cossacks to accept him as hetman in October 1659" (p. 214). I do not think it is suited for a spin-off article; I would say merge instead but most the article is unsourced. Mellk (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell: in 1658 Vyhovsky again recognized the Cossacks' dependence on Poland; the Union of Hadziach was signed. This resumed Polish-Russian fighting interrupted earlier by a truce; Russia invaded Ukraine seeking to subjugate Vyhovsky, having some Cossacks (including Sich) behind it.

In May, the PLC again concluded a truce with Russia, but the Sejm approved the Hadziach Union, and Vyhovsky received small reinforcements from the crown army. Thus came the Battle of Konotop, which Vyhovsky won. In August, however, a Cossack uprising broke out against Vyhovsky, who was overthrown and the new Hetman Yurko Khmelnytsky subordinated himself to Moscow, supported by a large part of the Cossacks. The war continued.

As you can see, there is no war between “Ukraine” and “Moscow”, but there is an internal rivalry between the divided Cossacks, which take place in the context of the Polish-Russian war. Marcelus (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that Google Scholar returns almost no results for "Russian-Ukrainian war" or "Russo-Ukrainian war" referring to 1658/1659 (if we limit the years to before the current war then almost all results refer to the Russian Civil War and a hypothetical war excluding post-2014 publications referring to the current war but slipped through). Same goes for "Muscovite-Cossack war" etc. I see a few results for Ukrainian-language sources but there needs to be a deeper look to see which ones are reliable. At the moment I see very little that supports the idea of a separate war. For example there are plenty of Ukrainian-language sources that refer to a Soviet occupation of Ukraine until 1991 but this was determined to be a fringe view. In fact we had an AfD for this (and this was also a translation of an article from the Ukrainian Wikipedia). Mellk (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Salvage what is possible from the article and merge it into the Russo-Polish War (1654–1667) page. Noorullah (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Sphera Universe media[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. This is basically a catalog of a particular company's products. AFD nomination per no GNG sourcing of the topic per se and numerous wp:not issues. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Lists, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BoBoiBoy seems to cover this. The template for it can be edited to add in the few things missing. Dream Focus 17:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not a catalog of a particular company's products and I have added more sources. Someonewhoisusinginternet (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeseha Wuraola Becky[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not starred in a single notable film; a Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are primary sources that involve the subject granting interviews to several publications. The article was previously deleted via an afd discussion, which can be seen here. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the previous deletion. My mind is why there seems always to be a minimal participation for consensus reach. However, an article created barely two /four days after deletion. What am I suspecting? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Versace1608, isn't this G4 you could have tagged. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Safari Scribe, I wasn't aware that the article was previously deleted. I only learned this info after nominating it. Sometimes if an article is different from the one that was previously deleted, the admin handling the speedy deletion will decline the G4 request. I have experienced this in the past. Anyways, thanks for the message. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions to this site. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't G4 on a prod/soft delete. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs check out. She doesn't pass Nactor, nor does she need to because she passes both Basic and GNG. Desertarun (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

HTML-Kit[edit]

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

Doesn't have enough coverage in WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV needed to meet notability guidelines. There's some brief coverage in books but nothing significant other than "it's an HTML editor you can use," and nothing else I could find that seemed reliable. Survived an AfD in 2005 solely on the basis of being "well-known." StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The prior AfD (which was long enough ago that it was actually a VfD) is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTML Kit; the article was renamed a few months after that nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because of prior deletion discussion, a Soft Deletion is not an option here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Usual software fluffery. Unreferenced since 2005. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea[edit]

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and South Korea. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylopedic or maintainable. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chenab[edit]

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

Another page littered with unreliable sources. Hari Ram Gupta doesn't even say he was defeated at all (which the page misleads you by citing it did), removed if you check now on my newest revision. Noorullah (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ram Gupta being the only reliable source on the page shows that the Afghans had instead routed and pursued the Sikhs. [2] Noorullah (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also had to remove numerous unreliable sources, including one of them being a near copy paste. [3] Noorullah (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chamkaur (1764)[edit]

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

Extremely unreliable sources including over-reliance on primary sources that still fall under WP:RAJ such as Panth Prakash, also extremely exaggerated in numbers (1 million?) Noorullah (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible. Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand. This article is one of the many, many examples. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.

also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States of Europe[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with a clear primary topic and one other recently created and comparatively niche topic. I propose to delete this page, redirect the title to European Federation, which covers this concept, and add a hatnote there. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The political entity on this dab is not much more than political aedvertising. No elections, no seats. For the rest: as by the nominator. The Banner talk 00:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note User:BD2412, since earlier history was merged to what is presently titled European Federation, much of the history is ineligible for deletion per WP:MAD. The page may still be redirected, and WP:AFD remains a correct venue for such a discussion per WP:ATD-R. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:10EB:6979:4B48:D793 (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The history itself can always be moved under a different title. BD2412 T 16:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  User:BD2412 sure, but that seems to be needless extra work since the result is that instead of simply targeting A from B you first move B to some other title C before targeting A with both, what's the point? 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you're saying. I have no problem with this being maintained as a redirect to European Federation with the current history intact; it should not exist as a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 17:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I agree, and that's fine WP:AFD is explicitly a correct venue to establish consensus for a WP:BLAR, just wanted to make sure we stayed within policy. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:E493:D84:28E3:D006 (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make the above clear following the relist since I never explicitly bolded anything, I support redirecting to European Federation as the primary topic at present with any necessary disambiguation being accomplished with hatnoting. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:49B:2883:34FC:225B (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, unless "European Federation" (rather an awkward name, especially the capitalised "F") is moved to "United State of Europe". --Checco (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the standard required by WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. BD2412 T 20:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to European Federation as per nom. Samoht27 (talk) 20:04, 24 April 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, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven James Bartlett[edit]

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

fails WP:NPROF and WP:AUTHOR, appears to be a vanity page Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Psychology. Psychastes (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, France, Germany, Mexico, California, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
how so? Psychastes (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However BLP is bloated and needs pruning to 20% of current. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Weak delete unless someone provides more RSes - the existence of Steven Bartlett (businessman) makes searching for sources quite annoying, but I managed to find a few. Here is an extended discussion of his book The Pathology of Man: A Study of Human Evil but I'm not sure about the journal or if the reviewer is an independent source. Other sources I found are briefer mentions, e.g. [4][5], or I don't have access (also unsure about the journal here) [6]. Shapeyness (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kalanaur (1748)[edit]

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

The sources on this page almost all deal with WP:RAJ, with many of the sources (including Singh), tracing back to the Panth Prakash, which fails WP:RAJ. Some of these sources don't even state that such a thing happened, and nor do any other major sources regarding this campaign such as Hari Ram Gupta. Noorullah (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, here's Hari Ram Gupta, who is a major historian in this region and has no recollection of such events whatsoever. [7] Singh (who relies on Prakash as stated on page 49) [8] Noorullah (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy and paste of previous AFD vote- Over the past year, these topic areas have been inundated with poorly written and sourced articles that paid no heed to neutrality, proper sourcing, or historical accuracy, but rather on aggrandizing their religion as much as possible. Tactics included an over reliance on primary sources and ref spamming Google books snippets or sources which only made negligible mention of topic at hand. This article is one of the many, many examples. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peatfold Burn[edit]

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

It's rare a google search returns no results, but here we are. Given this, and the fact this is merely a geographic formation, this fails WP:NPLACE by a long shot. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment A look at the reference given shows that the correct name of this feature is Burn of Peatfold. Using that produces a few hits, though I would tend to doubt its notability nonetheless, as for comparison we have deleted articles on German bachs of which we could only determine that they existed. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches for either term get few Google hits and many of the results seems to be for things around the burn rather than the burn its self. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clermont Sans Fil[edit]

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

No indication this was ever notable and completely WP:UNSOURCED but given I don't know French, decided to AfD instead of PROD out of an abundance of caution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and France. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not correct to suggest that this is completely unsourced. It has no citations but the references section has four references 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the citations are WP:ABOUTSELF so, I didn't really count them. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUDA (Shoshoni, Wyoming)[edit]

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

Defunct small-town station with no secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Redirect is unnecessary as the disambiguator of (Shoshoni, Wyoming) makes it an implausibly specific search term. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Wyoming. AusLondonder (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one I'm okay with. I checked for sources (like you're supposed to), and couldn't locate anything notable. Plus, the station signed back on as KUDA on a different frequency. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did check for sources, as you're supposed to do when creating an article, and found absolutely nothing. AusLondonder (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hence I'm fine with it. All I ask is due diligence before pushing the AfD button. I would appreciate a template first, so that the article can be improved. If no sources can be found, so be it, it can be deleted. I just hope there isn't a vendetta here. I've put in many hours trying to beef up sources in radio station articles, and I'm just hoping they don't go to waste for nefarious reasons. As I've said many times before, I don't own these articles, but I will defend any licensed broadcast station where legitimate third-party sources can be found. See KCUW-LP and KBGN for examples. A lot of work went into those. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 22:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not have the sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. Implausible search term for a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An obvious remnant article of the looser inclusion "standards" that this topic area had prior to 2021, which were largely based more on existence (which neither proves nor is notability) than on sourcing, much less the clearly-lacking-here significant coverage. The disambiguator makes any redirect impractical, particularly when there isn't much reason to retain the article history anyway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searchlight (workshops)[edit]

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

Have moved all the important content to Chailey Heritage School and would WP:BLAR but I feel that would leave an overly broad redirect, so I'm proposing a delete here. Fails WP:GNG and we can cover anything that does on Chailey Heritage School in the Searchlight Workshops section. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chailey Heritage School#Searchlight Workshops: As creating editor I had hopes that others would enhance this article. I feel it merits targeted WP:BLAR rather than deletion. This then leaves a good entry point for readers. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my main claim here, a redirect may be overly broad. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To aid this decision, I have migrated small but important additional material to the proposed target article and section, including references which were omitted, sourced and referenced the charity number (etc) for Searchlight Workshops, and noted the charity's cessation in 2011. One reference remains primary, but I believe it to be permitted under WP:PRIMARY. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Thomas[edit]

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

Biography of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he served on a county board of supervisors, which is not an "inherently" notable role -- it's a local office that has to satisfy NPOL #2, where the notability test is contingent on the amount of substance that can be written about his political impact, and the amount of sourcing that can be shown to support it. But this is literally just "he is a person who existed, the end", and is completely unsourced. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would suspect that the second Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is more historically significant as a body than many later iterations of the same, and wonder if perhaps sources can be found for this subject. I immediately wonder if he is the same person as the Daniel M. Thomas who was elected as the first County Judge of San Bernardino County. BD2412 T 22:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is the same person. He was a Mormon political activist who advocated for San Bernardino County to be split off from Los Angeles County. Cullen328 (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. See also the county record. I would lean to keep on the strength of these points. BD2412 T 22:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolux Laundry Systems[edit]

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

Article has absolutely no references to support it, has been tagged for many years to that effect, has not had anything substantial added to it for several years, and is not particularly informative. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wretha Hanson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that she was an alternate vice-presidential candidate in one state for a minor fringe party's presidential campaign, which is not an automatic notability freebie -- it could get her an article if she were shown to actually pass WP:GNG for it, but it is in no way "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from GNG. But there are just three improperly-formatted footnotes here, all of which are to primary or unreliable sources that are not support for notability at all, so she hasn't been shown to satisfy GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XSharp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This programming language does not have enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Just another .NET addon. Previously deleted in a 2009 AfD but resurrected by a WP:SPA in 2016. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already been AfD'd, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significant coverage via my cursory look. Also should be salted. [This should not go without a consensus] X (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Fahad[edit]

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

A Iraqi TikTok personality who was recently shot. Seems to lack any notability or sources while alive, a violation of WP:VICTIM and WP:GNG. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 21:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Crime, Internet, and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal I'd support a move to Death of Umm Fahad.Jeanette Tu Novia Martin (?) 22:05, 27 April, 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't the title Murder of Umm Fahad be more accurate? Like Murder of John Lennon? Brudelman (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @BlakeIsHereStudios: Has someone consulted possible sources in Arabic? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't usually think Internet "personalities" are worth the time of day. However, she seems noteworthy as it further highlights the ludicrous things that people will fall foul of the morality police in the middle east.Salty1984 (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a result of "Morality Police" - as Iraq doesn't have an official designated police force. Iran on the other hand, yes. The Ghashd Ershad (Morality Police) exist there, but don't shoot people (albeit they do harass people). This woman was killed by some lunatic fanatic by the looks of things, nothing related to morality police. Just thought I would clarify that. Ali313korosh (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•My understanding is that in Iraq, an influencer may speak about social and political issues as well as promoting cosmetics and clothing. Perhaps an explanation of the role of influencers would make the death more significant. - - - - 65.18.206.23 (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Death of Umm Fahad per JeanetteMartin's !vote, most if not all the coverage of this individual seems to be in regards of their death. However, more indebth sources need to be provided in order to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG, which I am unsure if the article passes at the moment. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move and wait, as her death seems to be gathering international attention. RodRabelo7 (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kami Paul[edit]

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

Fails to meet relevant WP:MUSICBIO as well general WP:GNG. I would suggest first delete and then redirect to Noori. This BLP was created by a user who might have a COI.—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Noori: not enough individual notability to warrant an individual article. InDimensional (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

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

Non notable topic, not an encyclopedia article but a hagiography. Nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual. There are and have been many people who are or were good with horses. Reading this article as someone who was not born in the USA is just weird. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is just the standard story people use to make heads of states seem cool, more a metaphor for their leadership of their country than a thing that they pretend actually happened. Famously, Alexander the Great tamed Bucephalus and George Washington tamed a colt. All so-called untameable horses that were tamed by a horsewhisperer with near-magical powers. Polygnotus (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“

I appreciate the fact, and am proud of it, that the attentions I am receiving are intended more for our country than for me personally.

”

— Ulysses S. Grant

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Military, Politics, United States of America, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, the content tone is atrocious in places and looks more like a student essay/WP:SYNTH that looked for references that just merely mentioned horses and Grant. That doesn't matter as much for AfD, but in looking through those sources and content, there really isn't a case made for notability at all. This source just by title is the closest there may be at trying to even hint at WP:N despite the superlatives, but that seems like an isolated case and more of a WP:INHERIT issue tied to Grant's notability that would get an occasional book like that. If there is anything to mention about the subject, it can be handled at the BLP, but I don't see this being a likely search term needing a redirect/merge either. KoA (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is an artifact of poor quality coverage of a supposed arrest of Grant for speeding in his carriage that got a flurry of attention as a side story to Donald Trump's criminal charges. Not a notable topic. Cullen328 (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, we have to wonder if this nomination to delete presents its own anti-nationalist bias. Given the wording, i.e."myth", "hagiography", "nationalistic drivel", this seems to be the case.
The article is sourced by multiple reliable sources used in the Grant (featured) article itself, and in other articles about Civil War. It may come off as a "hagiography", to some, simply because Grant was much more than "good with horses", but because he was markedly exceptional, beginning in his youth, often considered a prodigy, and there are several reliable sources to support that. As a cadet Grant set a hig jump record at West Point that stood for more than 25 years, that is also not a "myth". His experience with horses involved him with Lincoln, not to mention in exceptional feats during the Civil War, all reliably sourced. Because he was a renown horseman, he received them as gifts, while in the Civil War, and in retirement on his world tour from the Egyptian government and from the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.
It is by no means a passing coincidence that a memorial to Grant is a statue of him on a horse, or that a mural inside the dome of Grant's Tomb is of Grant on horseback. It is understood that this topic, like many that involve US history, may not appeal to everyone, but it certainly is so by people intereseted in Grant, and the Civil War, and there are many, and it ties in with Civil War history, and Grant's overall biography. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This anti-nationalist (aka pro-factual) bias is the same bias that would make me remove claims that Kim Jong-Il made 11 holes-in-one at his very first round of golf. The examples given in the article are not proof of exceptional skill, they are clearly made up stories to make him look cool. There is no way Ulysses had the most exceptional horsemanship in American history, and there are no sources for that claim (as noted on the talkpage). Polygnotus (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every recent biography of Grant devotes space to his horsemanship. The tone of the article may need some work, but trying to dismiss the topic as "nationalistic drivel" misses the mark entirely, as does attempting to link it to Trump. Intothat darkness 23:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have time this evening to follow up by examining your citations, but will try to get to that later. AfD discussions often turn on the quality of the sources. If sufficiently many reliable, secondary sources give significant or in-depth coverage to the topic, not just passing mentions, then the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article. That's the one-sentence summary; what "sufficiently many" and "significant or in-depth" actually mean in this case perhaps can be answered only by looking at the sources.

"Reliable secondary" sources include the likes of Catton, McFeely, Smith, White, Chernow. You should specifically be circumspect about the use of sources such as Brisbin, Fuller, Headley, Grant's son, and other contemporaries. The quoted passage from Brisbin in the "Military" section is evidently hagiographic, and even just including it in the article betrays a generally hagiographic approach.

The question is not about the horsemanship; it's about the coverage of the horsemanship. Through an assortment of anecdotes passed down through the years, we can be fairly sure that Grant was an accomplished horseman. But how much attention do the serious modern biographies or the modern Civil War historians give to this topic? The answer to that is what determines whether or not this topic warrants an article of its own. And if it does, the sources for that article had better be good ones, and they had better be enthusiastic about the topic. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources exist so has significant coverage in reliable sources. Article quality (whether it is hagiographic or not) is completely irrelevant at AfD. Summary style says that notable sections of articles can always be spun off into child articles. Deletion claims under vague assertions of What Wikipedia is not ie I just don't like it are always suspect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep U.S. Grant's horsemanship is indeed quite notable, established by ample sources. I also agree that the nomination to delete this page is flawed by sheer, blind bias. TH1980 (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an American equestrian, I strongly dispute this interpretation and reading of the article, and vote to Keep the article as a result. The horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant is particularly notable, especially among U.S. Presidents, and appears to be written and intended for primarily an American audience. However, even many Americans are unaware of Grant's exceptional equestrian skills, which have also been noted by several historians. Additionally, "according to Wikipedia policy, editors should only nominate an article for...deletion under limited circumstances, such as pure vandalism, and not mark legitimate pages without good faith discussion". (See: Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.) I also strongly dispute the assertation that the article is "nationalistic drivel; a national myth presented as if it is factual", as the topic has been covered by both biographers of Grant, as well as other professional historians. Obversa (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As noted by User:Intothatdarkness, both biographers and many professional historians have covered the "Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant" as a notable topic. While the article may need to be overhauled, the topic is notable in of itself to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would also note that the Wikipedia article for Cincinnati, Ulysses S. Grant's primary Thoroughbred mount and favorite horse during the American Civil War, also ridden by Abraham Lincoln, was already merged into Horsemanship of Ulysses S. Grant some time ago. Deleting the page would be a disservice to not only the topic itself, but also the decision to merge the two articles. I also agree with User: Gwillhickers in questioning whether this suggested page deletion is in good faith or not, as Wikipedia policy dictates. Obversa (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Obversa: So you are admitting that you refuse to follow WP:AGF? So you are saying that, just because we disagree, I must be of bad faith? Polygnotus (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reply comes across as aggressive and uncivil, as well as your comments on my User talk page. Please do not comment on my User talk page, and keep discussion civil, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you. See: Wikipedia:How to be civil or Wikipedia:Civility. I stand by what I said in my original reply, and still vote to Keep the page based on my previous reasoning. Obversa (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well sourced and easily meets GNG, and per discussion and the historical fact that Grant was both known for his horsemanship and his horses. Besides, if he were alive today, and faced with the politics of 21st century America, he'd be a jockey. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite but the sources exist and don't appear, at a surface level review, to be synth. We don't delete for bad writing. Simonm223 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polygnotus — The fact that you automatically equate anti-nationalist bias with facts only serves to demonstrate, further, the lack of objectivity with which you assessed this article. Grant's horsemanship is largely a positive affair, and simply because there isn't coverage of his his failures or short comings with horses and horsemanship is for the simple reason that there are no such episodes. His horse did lose its footing once, fell over, and landed on Grant's leg, but that was not Grant's fault entirely, if at all. — I once had a history professor claim, that history is mostly "written by the winners of wars", to which I commented, "what would history read like if it was only written by losers". In any case, much of history is written objectively, and again, simply because an account of a particular chapter seems positive, it doesn't automatically mean it's less than factual or over stated..-- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To everyone else. Thank you for your support. I am perfectly willing to improve on any sentence(s) or paragraph(s) that may need it, and am perfectly open to fair suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INDENT. Ad hominems and straw man arguments make your argument weaker, not mine. What would history read like if it was written by the horses? Polygnotus (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy was point on, given your assessment. The only straw man around here was the one you stood up in front of this article.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough indents! Polygnotus (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Evans[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, United Kingdom, and Wales. Flounder fillet (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 20:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vida Loka II[edit]

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Reneradelsilver (Reneradelsilver) 23:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing[edit]

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

This article is largely primary sources and WP:SYNTH of these sources. The first half is mostly just explianing what hyperlinks and framing is (mostly unnecessary WP:HOWTO), and the 2nd half largely acknowledges there really aren't copyright issues in US/Germany and other contexts. Why does this even exist? ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The absence of prohibitions for a subject controversial enough to have led to lawsuits is itself the notable thing worth being covered in an encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with this article that cannot be fixed. BD2412 T 22:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article exists because the topic is notable: It satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin with significant coverage in books and periodicals in Google Books, Google Scholar and HeinOnline, in particular. There are many entire periodical articles about this, such as: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. No evidence has been offered of actual SYNTH or HOWTO. James500 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: I agree that this topic is notable, but the article as written is basically an essay. For example, this part of the lead is written as if it's part of an argumentative paper: The issues about linking and framing have become so intertwined under copyright law that it is impractical to attempt to address them separately. As will appear, some decisions confuse them with one another, while other decisions involve and therefore address both. Likewise, this section is 100% OR: Related issues arise from use of inline links (also called image-source or img-src links because the HTML code begins with "img src=") on Web pages. An inline link places material — usually an image such as a JPEG or GIF — from a distant website into the Web page being viewed. For example, the adjacent image is the seal of the USPTO, as shown on some of its pages at the USPTO website. Additionally, the "History of copyright litigation in field" section is also OR, as it lists several cases without providing reliable secondary sources that establish that the cases listed are significant and provides unsourced analysis of the state of the law. Several of the sections lack citations and make arguments, rather than describe what RSes say about this topic. We should not allow an article that draws legal conclusions to remain in mainspace without adequate sourcing; this would be uncontroversial if the article had MEDRS issues and the standard should be the same when we have legal information on wiki. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The headnotes in the third series of the Federal Reporter (which is what "F.3d" means) are an independent secondary source. Most cases are not reported, and a case would not be reported in a series of law reports unless it was believed to have precedent value (and is therefore "significant"). In any event, the cases of Kelly and Perfect 10 are discussed in treatises and periodical articles on the subject, which is not surprising since they are Ninth Circuit decisions on the point (and, indeed, they are independently notable).
And you can add the Ticketmaster and Shetland Times cases to that as well, based on sources in Google Books, such as [18] and numerous other sources that are returned by a search for "Shetland Times Ltd. v. Wills"+hyperlinks. I should also point out that a lack of citations is not the same thing as OR.

The standard of MEDRS should not be applied to law, because law is not an experimental science, legal sources bear no resemblence to medical sources either in their content or their correct use, and it would be pseudolaw to apply the methodolgy of medical science to law. James500 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not that law is a science or analogous to it, but that we shouldn't present legal information to people based on an editor's opinion or analysis of case law, which is how the article is currently written. I think this article needs to be fundamentally rewritten. I also am not arguing that lack of citation implies OR, but this article is clearly written in an essay-like, argumentative style, and the fact that there are no citations in significant parts of the articles compounds the problem. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding precedential value, that is decided by the court issuing the opinion, not the reporter. I don't think headnotes alone are sufficient to establish that a particular case is significant, since every published case gets them, and not every published case represents a significant legal development. For example, in New York, every appellate decision is published and has precedential value, even if it's a short, unsigned memorandum. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "in New York, every appellate decision is published". Published by whom? A law report is not the same thing as an official transcript. I can tell you for certain that in England, not all appellate decisions are reported, and the reporter decides which cases to report based on his opinion of their value, not the court. Similarly in England, the headnote tells you what the reporter thinks the ratio decidendi of the case is. James500 (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're published by both the official reporter (the Law Reporting Bureau [LRB]) and by West in their proprietary law reports. The LRB writes the headnotes as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In New York, only selected trial court opinions get reported, but all Appellate Division opinions are reported. Some states and the federal appellate courts are like the UK, where not all appellate decisions are reported. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it's clear this article has way too much WP:SYNTH to remain, and in addition is frankly, too technical. We should avoid trying to provide legal advice on Wikipedia. This article should probably focus way less on the case law and a lot more on any news media coverage of the subject (I suspect there have been a lot of reporters and think tanks that have probably explored this). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should focus more on academic coverage in law reviews/journals, rather than media coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCSD-LP[edit]

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

Not many articles have been attempted to be prodded three times; in that sense alone, this AfD is long overdue. The article itself is a remnant of the looser standards in this topic area in the 2000s, but according to the talk page there was a failed prod that was followed by an A7 speedy deletion in 2007. It was recreated in 2009; a 2010 prod tagging was contested because of the prior article. (The contesting rationale notes that at the time, licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable, but with the caveat that consensus can change. In this topic area, that happened with this 2021 RfC; we now require significant coverage and cannot source solely to FCC records and other databases.) I just had to procedurally contest a third prod because of the prior prods. I had been considering a redirect to the list of radio stations in Pennsylvania as an alternative to deletion, and I still think that is the best course of action (I do not support retaining the article as it is), but the triple-prod means this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gating (punishment)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

seems to be just a dictionary definition Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lawlor[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a sports figure, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for sportspeople. To be fair, at the time this was first created, Wikipedia had a consensus that simple presence at the Olympics was an automatic inclusion lock regardless of medal placement or sourcing issues -- but that's long since been deprecated, and a non-medalist now has to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability.
But a WP:BEFORE search turned up very little that could be used to salvage the article: apart from Olympic results reporting itself, I largely just get glancing namechecks of his existence and local high-school-athlete coverage rather than coverage that's substantively about him in any notability-building sense. I've further been completely unable to verify this article's claim that he was born in Sudbury — even the database entry present here as the article's sole source fails to claim that, and his local high-school-athlete coverage is found in Ottawa, not Sudbury. (And yes, I get that it's possible for people to be born in one place and then move to another, but we still need to be able to verify claims about a person's birthplace.)
Finishing ninth in an Olympic event just isn't "inherently" notable enough anymore to exempt him from ever having to have more reliable source coverage than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides raising chickens in his backyard [19] -and it might not even be this person- nothing for notability. Aylmer is near Ottawa. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Oaktree b and Bearcat: Passes GNG, see coverage at newspapers.com: Ottawa Citizen feature (p2), more Ottawa Citizen, Harbor City Star, and The Standard. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Citizen is the local hometown coverage I mentioned in my nomination statement, the St. Cat's Standard is just a short blurb that nominally verifies a fact but is not long enough to imbue said fact with any notability points, and the Harbour City Star hit is literally just an advertorial to sell aquatic sport clothing that Tyler Lawlor is modelling, not an article about Tyler Lawlor doing anything noteworthy. So the Ottawa Citizen is still all we've actually got for GNG-worthy coverage, and that's still "local guy" coverage in his hometown newspaper (i.e. not enough if it's all he's got). Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottawa Citizen is one of the largest newspapers in Canada, and as such should be given the full weight of a normal significant source (esp. considering that locality of coverage is irrelevant). The Harbour City Star piece: yes, it is about a business of Lawlor's, but it seems to be written by a valid journalist by a valid company (Southam Newspapers, owned by Postmedia Network) – it seems to have enough details on him IMO to be categorized as covering him "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" – as far as I'm aware a source does not need to cover someone for them doing something one subjectively things is "noteworthy" to be considered significant. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Kochlamazashvili[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up are trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Soares[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Ineligible for PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zinedine Booysen[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best sources I found were two sentences of coverage here and four-ish sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think with the sources found and a few other bits in a search, it's close to a WP:GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few independent-ish sentences interspersed within an interview are not enough for SPORTCRIT or GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bardle[edit]

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP; subject made one pro appearance. All I really found was this transactional announcement. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot cake[edit]

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

Non-notable cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Beetroot, where several recipes are mentioned; agree with nom it's not really notable in itself. This one can be added at Beetroot as it's reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there seems to be enough sources available, particularly if the scope is broadened slightly to include the use of beetroot as a supplement to other baked products (for reasons of extending the shelf-life, for example). Klbrain (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant page. The article doesn't sit well alone, so redirecting is probably best. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominica at the 2002 Commonwealth Games[edit]

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

Previously subject of a contested PROD. No secondary sources. Zero useful content. Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominica at the 2010 Commonwealth Games was that these articles are not useful, particularly if they lack substantive content.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Athletes need to win a medal for their participation in an event to become notable - seems most reasonable to apply that to countries as well. BrigadierG (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with making that a blanket rule, but many of these countries that send a small number of participants won't generate coverage to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me. As I'm not sure what they could be replaced with if deleted, I would favour completing those articles rather than deleting them (and subsequently re-creating them with proper content). Either that, or put into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (etc) the content that they should have, and turn them into a redirect. Aridd (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, did you add these additional articles to this nomination or did someone else? Whomever did it, please move this list of articles to the top of the AFD, above any comments, so that XFDcloser will see them as being part of this AFD nomination. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: Thanks, will do. They were towards the top before, appears someone accidentally commented above them. AusLondonder (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AusLondonder, nicely done. Thank you. XFDcloser can be a little fussy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to "X at the Commonwealth Games" (where X is country name). Not enough coverage for separate articles, but they look to have 2002 mentioned in their parent articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all with prejudice to Anguilla at the Commonwealth Games, Antigua and Barbuda at the Commonwealth Games etc. XX at XX CG are often barebones article, almost templates, with no hope whatsoever for expansion to actual articles. The sensible solution is to merge on sight with the appropriate country pages. Geschichte (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure a redirect is necessary. The Montserrat page, for example, was averaging views in the single digits per month, not even statistically significant. Most internal links are via templates such as Template:Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games. I also don't particularly see how a redirect here fulfils the criteria at WP:RPURPOSE. Also taking a look at the template Associations at the 2002 Commonwealth Games about half the template are redlinks. Finally, the redirects are not plausible search terms. AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or merge and which is the preferred target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a native of the island mentioned in this AFD discussion title (obvious disclosure), merge and source into Dominica at the Commonwealth Games (as an example). (If possible--for completion's sake--we may as well actually mention the names of the six athletes who participated back then.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging just 2002 to the parent articles when no other years, even more successful years, are mentioned, doesn't seem like appropriate balance. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to 2002 Commonwealth Games. Little chance any coverage exists to satisfy GNG individually. JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Vermeulen[edit]

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

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreyas Puranik[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, appears not notable. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of the article i would like to suggest keep, as it passes WP:MUSIC. The musical artist have received full fledged coverage from independent media sources for his work such as [20], [21], [22].[23]. Further the artist also passes one of the criteria of winning or being nominated for a notable award, as he won the notable Filmfare R. D. Burman Award in the category of upcoming music talent.[24][25]

Hineyo (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above references are either paid placement or Press Releases. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Note - This account (Hineyo) is blocked. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pass WP:MUSIC, Also, there are significant reliable sources availabe which talks about the subject. Grabup (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramgopal Suthar[edit]

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

As noted in WP:NPOL and WP:NSUBPOL, Wikipedia doesn't normally consider municipal councillors notable enough for a separate article, unless they've received significant press coverage in that role. The rest of his roles have been low-to-mid-level party leader jobs and a political appointment as chair of Skill Development Board, Government of Rajasthan. No significant coverage of him per WP:GNG or WP:BIO in reliable secondary sources; what I can find on him in a WP:BEFORE search in English and Hindi (रामगोपाल सुथार) is routine coverage of his recent appointment as chair, and some WP:PRIMARY source quotes from his speeches. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rajasthan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

user:wikishovel I have added enough resources for Position held in Part over time, are they not sufficient for Publishing the article? Vishwakarma-anie (talk) 05:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions normally take about a week. Wikishovel (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, Washington[edit]

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

At a glance, this looks like a well-written and -sourced article, but it's a total WP:COATRACK. Almost nothing in the article is about the "town" of Martin, because there isn't anything to say: It was a minor railroad maintenance point that later had a station for a nearby ski area. Of all the cited sources, only reference 14 comes close to substantial coverage; many sources don't mention Martin at all. I couldn't find any additional sources that aren't already cited, and none are more than trivial mentions (e.g. photos of trains taken at Martin). I suggest a delete; I could also live with a merge of relevant content to Stampede Pass, Northern Pacific Railroad, or Meany Lodge (from which much of this article's content seems to have been copied). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Washington. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Stampede pass. I agree with nom. The newspaper record supports this is a train station near Stampede pass that had good ski properties. But there was never a town there. The nearest towns were Easton and Weston. I don't however understand why there was a siding and a station there. Refueling, or maintenance maybe? Here are news clips that are helpful in understanding the place. Describes it as remotest place in county. [26] Stranded Skies spend the night in Meany hut. [27] People ski at Meany SKi hut [28]James.folsom (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In further reading of the papers I did see a passing mention about steam locomotives needing to stop for water after a long climb up a grade. James.folsom (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable railway complex rather than as a populated place (although some railway workers must have lived there). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Martin Ski Dome, which appears to have been expanded by the same author. There's enough here for an article, but I think the ski dome is a better target. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutta (tribe)[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show notability - I am aware this isn't my area though or language. Boleyn (talk) 09:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 5 results show up if you search "Mutta people" on Google Books. [29] They do exist, but maybe they are a small community (I don't know) and not much has been written about them. However, I found 5 results on Google books alone. I haven't checked other venues like Scholar etc. If this is a keep, maybe changing it to Mutta people.Tamsier (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Lagoon Resort[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Weak independent significant coverage. The resort in question closed down due to COVID/bankruptcy. Uhooep (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Closed or not, it easily passes requirements and is well sourced. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per WP:PROMO. The article and all references on that article seems to be promotion material of that resort. Also, the main contributor of the article, MozaicHotels&Resorts, is an employee of that resort and has been previously blocked for adding promotional content. Ckfasdf (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not true at all, the promotional content they added was reverted. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable independent coverage. I see nothing promotional in the article. The LEED ccertification is noteworthy in itself, and the new conference center got attention too. Being closed is irrelevant, although the closure also got coverage [30]. Perhaps it will reopen. But once notable, always notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners[edit]

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

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Business. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Belgium, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the available coverage falls well within WP:ORGTRIV. I was not able to find anything more substantial. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect into Kennedys Law into which Gates was dissolved. Why wasn't this suggested upfront? gidonb (talk) 13:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Monk[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional rugby league footballer who made his professional debut in 2023, played the other day against fellow top level side Warrington in the Challenge Cup. Multiple sources within the article.Fleets (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources 1 and 2 are stats databases, while the next four are trivial mentions of the subject. BLPs require strong sourcing, which is why I draftified it the first time. JTtheOG (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently playing in the top tier with five appearances and will likely gain more. Currently borderline on notability for me but will likely be recreated if deleated. Mn1548 (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. He might be notable in the future but that would be speculating. Re-create if and when he plays a few more games and more sources are likely to exist. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are exclusively namedrops, zero coverage here. Arguments to keep based only on his appearing in a particular league are strictly invalid per SPORTSBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of London Broncos players. Fails GNG as there is no SIGCOV. References are routine coverage and stats databases. Frank Anchor 01:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - two further news sources added referencing academy days, move into first team, and first appearance of the 2024 season.Fleets (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Young player, will likely have more written in the near future, 8 refs already. Mn1548 (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from repeating your !vote on a new bulleted line. Thank you. JTtheOG (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J Mo 101: @JoelleJay: Would y'all consider a redirect to List of London Broncos players to be a better alternative? JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible. I would have no problem with that. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Software law[edit]

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

This has been sitting here unsourced and stubbed for years and years. If there is anything notable about "software law", it could just be a section in information technology law or similar article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Software. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 03:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by an exceptionally wide margin. Has signficant coverage in Google Books, Google Scholar and elsewhere. There are entire books [31][32] [33] [34] [35] [36], and even entire periodicals (such as the Sofware Law Journal [37]), on this subject. There are also many entire periodical articles. The article is not unsourced now. The topic is very easily independently notable from information technology law, of which it is only part, and not even the majority. Being a "stub" is not a policy or guideline based grounds for the deletion of a topic that satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing it, I remember seeing it a few months ago and being shocked how short it was. -1ctinus📝🗨 11:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the sources uncovered by James. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Information technology law as a section. Even with improvements, this is still minimal stub quality, and can be expanded within the broader context of information technology law until there is something to break out into a more complete article. BD2412 T 01:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That approach violates the guideline WP:PAGEDECIDE, which says "an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page". GNG creates a presumption that this topic should have an article, and in view of the language of PAGEDECIDE, there would have to be at least a policy or guideline to rebut that presumption in this case. That approach also goes against the advice of all three criteria of the essay WP:NOTMERGE. The most likely outcome of that approach will be that information technology law, which is already a large and unbalanced page, will become too large (violating WP:TOOBIG) or more unbalanced (violating WP:PROPORTION) or will omit relevant material (and the recent removals of content from that article probably already violate WP:PRESERVE, due to the removal of entire countries that ought to be included, such as the UK and India). James500 (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 17:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although this should also be covered as a section in information technology law. Software law is clearly separate from IT law as a whole, and I feel a lot of notable cases could be covered, like https://www.zdnet.com/article/sun-vs-microsoft-clash-of-the-titans-5000121284/ (from 2002, so reliable). Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed[edit]

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

Procedural nomination for deletion under WP:BIODELETE per request on my talk. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Arab Emirates. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (recuse/abstain), neither advocate nor oppose deletion, please do not consider my nomination a !vote. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person holds two very senior positions in the government of Abu Dhabi, analogous to cabinet level positions in other countries. The content regarding alleged violations of hunting laws in Azerbaijan should be removed because it implies a criminal offense though there seems to be no prosecution or conviction, and the offense may not even be considered a crime. If the current content is correct, a violation would be an infraction and a small monetary fine would be the outcome. WP:BLPCRIME is relevant to this issue. I will remove that content for now. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject was, as Cullen328 said, a member of government in not one but two senior positions. Removing disputed content based on dubious sources, what's left is plenty of reliable sources indicating the significance of this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 02:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first resource is not working. all other resources are outdated and many of them are blogs and not reliable. additionally, the article is written in CV mode. i vote for deleting. Ahmaddarwish74 (talk) 06:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) — Ahmaddarwish74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But in a number of edits you, Ahmaddarwish74, have indicated that you are the subject of the article. Then at times you seem to be rather obfuscating this factoid. Do you not see how, if true, this leads to conflicts and problems? Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmaddarwish74: Have you run across WP:POLITICIAN yet? After you've read it, can you offer any reason to claim that the subject of this article is not a "politician[...] who [has] held [...] national [...] office, or [has] been [a member] of legislative bodies at [national] levels"? JFHJr (㊟) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @Ahmaddarwish74: The broken URL was easily fixed with an archive link. The internet is forever. I guess that still might be news. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Jean Patrick[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(Renomination: the discussion from 2010 closed as "no consensus.") I don't believe that Brenda Jean Patrick fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts. Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district. I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elwood Middle School[edit]

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

No indication school passes WP:NSCHOOL and written entirely as a WP:PROMO for the school. Was previously redirected to Elwood Union Free School District but reverted more than once. Unless notability can be established, seeking consensus for restoration of the redirect. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New York. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elwood Union Free School District. The entire article is written in a promotional style, with information that could apply to most middle schools. I can't find anything to suggest that it is notable in its own right. Joyous! Noise! 19:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elwood Union Free School District. An unsourced, promotional piece of fluff, that reads as if it were copied from the school board's page. I don't see a claim to notability. Meters (talk) 07:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect page. This isn't a notable subject and it's clear that these restorations are a connected editor not aware of WP:NOTFACEBOOK. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XXXDial[edit]

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

No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few mentions anywhere; notability is not established. Joyous! Noise! 19:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Impure Reason[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOK, only 5 citations in google scholar, none of which are reviews and 3 of which are by the author himself. Appears to be a vanity page. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Psychastes (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I can find is a few citations and a mention in a bibliography of work on Kant. The best is this which mainly focuses on another of Bartlett's books and notes "This is not my field and I haven’t tried to tackle the book, but have exchanged ideas with Steven about promoting it. You see, he has had an extremely difficult time trying to find anyone to review the book." Shapeyness (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Oviedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Probable UPE advertisement for non notable individual. Just another working photographer. Refbombed to primary source showing he has done work but there is a lack of independent coverage about him. None of the claimed awards are major awards or are specifically for him. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, Colombia, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Duffbeerforme,

Thank you for your input. I appreciate your concerns and have made extensive revisions to address them.

I have reduced references to primary source in order to address concerns about over-reliance on self-published materials and lack of independent third-party coverage. The revised article now only cites reliable secondary sources when discussing Oviedo's photography work, clients, awards, and publications his work has appeared in.

While Oviedo may not be a household name, the secondary sources demonstrate he is a professional photographer who has done notable work for advertising campaigns and brands like Altoids, Coca-Cola, Virgin Voyages and others. His photography has received recognition from respected industry awards like the Clio Awards, The One Club's ADC Awards, and his work has been featured in publications such as Lürzer's Archive covering advertising and design.

By removing the recurring primary source references and ensuring all claims are backed by independent third-party publications, I believe the revised article adheres more closely to Wikipedia's guidelines on biographies and neutral tone. I'm open to further improving the article if you or other editors have specific concerns. Unless other editors have substantive concerns about the sources or information provided, I believe this article meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for creative professionals who have played a major role in significant or well-known bodies of work as outlined under WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. PagePatroller (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PagePatroller is the creator of the article.

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. There are no sources to support independent notability. What we have, and, on top of it, what one can find, are typical listings, such as this; interviews, which, by themselves, are not enough to support notability (see WP:OR, note #d), such as this; self-written bios, such as this; presentations of ads in which a lot of people contributed and our subject is mentioned, such as this and this; advertorials in trade publications, e.g. here and here; self-published sources, like this; and simply more of the same.

As to WP:ARTIST, which has been invoked, here are the prerequisites: The article's subject must be (A) an important figure...widely cited by peers or successors; (B) originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique; (C) created -or played a major role in co-creating- a significant or well-known work; (D) [his] work has become a significant monument, been part of a significant exhibition, won significant critical attention, or been represented within permanent collections. I'm afraid our subject meets none of the four. --The Gnome (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is an advertising photographer but not a notable one. The Gnome did an excellent job analyzing the sources. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Gapeau (B284)[edit]

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

The only reliable source for this fishing ship / unarmed military transport ship is a massive 10-book encyclopedia of all German warships no matter how small or insignificant. The other source, netmarine.net, is more of a large hobby site / semi wiki than anything else ("Si vous souhaitez compléter ces pages par des récits, illustrations ou autres documents, écrivez nous."). Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Transportation, France, and Germany. Fram (talk) 07:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always kept commissioned naval vessels. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we haven't, and is in any case not a reason to keep things. "We keep because we always keep" is ignoring things like Wp:CCC and the stricter standards we have for establishing notability instead of assuming some inherent notability across many topics. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You tried the exact same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-316, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS LSM-422 and the like, which ended in redirection, with the closing admin noting the particular weakness of your argument. Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you discount my argument because you disagree with precedent but then cite a closer's remarks (which did not refer to my argument specifically, incidentally) as some sort of precedent? You've got to laugh! But, other than those numbered vessels, which are all pretty much the same, and some static accommodation barges, would you like to cite the AfDs where commissioned military vessels were deleted. Just so we know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have if they got more than routine coverage. A fishing vessel pressed into navy service isn't the HMS Ark Royal or USS Missouri, so it won't have that level of coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading the article for 2 seconds shows that it was requisitioned for service as a military ship during World War II, so stating fishing ship / unarmed transport ship, is technically correct but is a misleading strawman. I'm not arguing for or against deletion because I don't know if there is a separate method for assessing the notability of ships, but that statement just irked me. Curbon7 (talk) 09:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "unarmed military transport ship", otherwise my addition of "unarmed" would make little sense, but I agree that not including "military" was involuntarily misleading. I've added it now, I hope that's better? Fram (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Much appreciated Curbon7 (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The vessel served with two navies and two commercial fishers. Although unarmed in French Navy service, she was definitely armed in Kriegsmarine service. If Netmarine is objected to, I can add from Janes All the World's Ships, which most definitely passes WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lloyd's Register is also a reliable source. Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That Lloyd's mention is reliable, but it doesn't contribute to the topic's notability. See WP:SIGCOV. I'm familiar with Janes' usual entries, and while they're also reliable I'm not sure that will meet the SIGCOV bar either. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots and longstanding practice. Kablammo (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Vorpostenboote in World War II. I'm not concerned with the scope of Gröner's work, but I am interested in its depth of coverage. From the article's content, I'm guessing it does check that WP:SIGCOV box (in addition to all the other points at WP:GNG). Unfortunately, that's only one source, and Lloyd's table doesn't reach that bar. If there's a typical entry in Jane's Fighting Ships, I'm guessing that wouldn't either. As a result, I think this topic can be covered in the main Vorpostenboote list, or if needed that list could be split. (Per GNG footnote 4: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.") Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable boat/fishing trawler/transport. Wasn't involved in any heroic anti-submarine battle or any notable rescue at sea that would garner coverage. What's used for coverage is routine ship registry listings, tracing the vessel's career until being scrapped. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Added a little more history from an additional source. - Davidships (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patched (malware)[edit]

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. Another one of those articles with a name so vague it's basically impossible to search for. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Googling "Win32/Patched" only results in primary source malware descriptions and forum posts. I also don't see any notable incidents which exploited or used this malware. Don't see this meeting WP:NSOFT or GNG. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of books featured on Book of the Week in 2012[edit]

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

This is a series of unsourced lists of no encyclopedic value and we're not the Radio Times. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Radio, and Lists. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of the same list:

* the 2015 does have a single source, but I'm standing by the lack of encylopedic value. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Radio 4 is a single UK radio, Book of the Week is one program on the radio station. So we're into a very small audience before asking who would be looking for this list? The answer being nobody. So the nom is correct this information isn't encyclopedic. And its unreferenced because nobody would ever care to talk about the topic in reliable third party media. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beenish Chohan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beenish Chohan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 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 ☎ ✎ 17:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh[edit]

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 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 ☎ ✎ 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 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 ☎ ✎ 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anumta Qureshi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 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 ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Akhtar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted as per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erum Akhtar —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 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 ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well known actress. She started working in 1990 and she has portrayed leading roles in dramas now she does supporting roles as well sometimes lead roles.^[1]

References

^ "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

Fyi, the comment above was made by the creator of the BLP. The reference they provided to establish WP:N is merely a sensational news story. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XOFTspy Portable Anti-Spyware[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per attempted 2021 PROD by Bwoodcock

Upon reading the talk page, it appears that this was malware disguised as antivirus. Which is a thing. But that sockpuppetry back in the day kept the article itself from actually saying so. So I think the main problem with this article is that it's substantially misleading, but that there's no practical way to clean it up, because it was of such minor significance that it left no footprint in the media... just a few bloggers arguing about whether it was malware or just antivirus software so bad that it didn't do anything. In any event, now, with the benefit of hindsight, it probably should have been dealt with differently, and it seems utterly un-note-worthy.

Although they were later blocked for unrelated sockpuppetry, I see no reason to doubt their knowledge on this specific issue, which means we've been lying to our readers for 17 years. What a disgrace. Anyway, it's time for this article to go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Searching online I could find only press releases/copies of press releases, forum posts, download mirrors, and a couple of barebones reviews with no context (example). I couldn't find any reliable sources showing it is malware, but I also couldn't find any reliable sources showing notability either. - Aoidh (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RunScanner[edit]

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

Neither cited source even mentioned the topic. Source searching is finding only software download websites. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence, or claim to, notability. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HijackThis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability. Previous AfD was kept due to people sharing their own testimonials of how it helped them, which is just not how notability works. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Optimizer[edit]

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

Sources are all just database entries. No evidence of notability. Not eligible for proposed deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dyfuca * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bell (figure skater)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; ineligible for PROD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Yadav[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Press Releases and announcements. Most of the news is about his firm. The news are about the company. Or it will be better to Redirect this article on Housing.com. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwinder Singh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. A Google search brings up more such paid PR publications. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fakesysdef[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Defender[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rogue security software[edit]

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

Inherently against WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTDATABASE. Wikipedia is not a malware database. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough notable entries to justify a list. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A large number of the bluelinks are duplicates pointing to the same set of articles, and a large number of the remainder are themselves undergoing deletion processes as non-notable.. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Shield[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill malware with no evidence of notability. PROD previously contested by the now-banned Neelix with "try Google News search" - I did, and I found either nothing or unrelated topics * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ByteDefender[edit]

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

The fact that BitDefender is sometimes impersonated by malware probably deserves a mention there, but I'm really not seeing how this software is notable. The references are just how-to-guides from malware-removal companies, which will presumably publish such guides for every bit of malware to come to their attention, but this seems very run-of-the-mill to me. Yes, this is an indictment of society, but it is what it is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Brown (artist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.

And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.

It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Lunn[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whistleblowers Australia[edit]

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

Changeworld1984 (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record[edit]

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

Before search revealed little results outside of sources already in article (passing mention in variety), fr-wiki article has little else to offer too. Someone should search in dutch but subject might not have another name based off filmfonds.nl source in article. (pinging Mushy Yank de-prodded) Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justi yaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:

Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

All in all (and maybe there's more), I'd rather keep this, but that's just me. There's no page about the artist so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.

The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justi yaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian youth[edit]

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

The entire article is original research, specifically WP:SYNTH. There are many instances of stating opinions as facts (WP:VOICE), e.g., "The roots of current Russian youth culture can be traced back to ancient Russia, but more readily apparent signs of modern Russian youth culture are due to the reactionary influence because of both the Soviet Union's formation and its dissolution", and riddled with weasel words, e.g., "Some observers noted what they described as a "generational struggle" among Russians". Generally, these are not the basis for an article to be deleted when the article can be fixed or tagged, but the idea of the article itself is based on collating different sources to present a personal reflection, i.e., Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pleas note that the sources cited mostly do not support claims being asserted, with the statement being more of a conjecture rather than an encyclopaedic one. FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Delete it. I wouldn't care. I guess that the fact that I tried to write objectively and it came out subjectively shows how poorly done that the journalism I've read that inspired me to write the same is and so on. Lunavara (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD process is generally where editors debate. It is a good opportunity for you to defend your work and maybe change our minds. You can also fix the deficiencies noted by myself (an maybe other editors) and update us with a comment when you do that.

My nomination is not a unilateral decision, and I think you should care about it so you can improve your future work and learn more about policies that dictate how this place ticks. Please take it as a chance to learn, as you continue grow as editor, and also feel free to challenge it.

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute for more information FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there was massive edit after the nom to try to fix the article (by deleting almost half of it) but I still think the article is beyond fixing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Innkeeper's Collection[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - four of five sources are their own website, the other a non-specific cite to an industry publication. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. AusLondonder (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Wish I had checked for sources before wasting my time moving the article/updating logo but hey ho. Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Pacific 1269[edit]

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

Disputed PROD for non-notable locomotive; fails WP:GNG as all but one available sources are user-generated or self-published. (The single published source is a 23-page photo book, and GNG requires multiple reliable source.) Also fails notability under WP:TWP/MOS; there is no evidence of this individual locomotive being superlative or recognized as historically significant. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added references from three more newspaper articles and two more books, which demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Opolito (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding citations. Unfortunately, these do not appear to support the case for notability.
- As for the Arcadia books (Niles Canyon Railway and Sacramento's Southern Pacific Shops), numerous RS Noticeboard discussions express the consensus that many Arcadia books are the equivalent of self-published material and thus to be used with caution if at all. (See [38], [39], [40].) Moreover, these books only mention No. 1269 briefly in passing or in photo captions and do not appear to provide significant coverage.
- Western Railroader is not a newspaper, it's a iarchive:western-railroader-february-1962-deep-creek-railroad/page/n7/mode/2up self-described railfan newsletter. Fan publications are generally questionable for notability. (I am not questioning it as a source for factual information, just as evidence of the subject's notability.)
- Finally, since you appear to have the source but it is not online, can you provide more details about how the coverage in the Auburn Journal is significant?
Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is not individually notable it should be merged to a sourced 1-2 sentences at List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock#Preserved steam locomotives and redirected there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support that approach. Redirect Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of preserved Southern Pacific Railroad rolling stock as an alternative to deletion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden, or Delete. Case of WP:BLP1E that was previously deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (2nd nomination), but it was recreated. Referencing is very poor (there are no quality RS that cover the subject in any SIGOV outside of being in lists of famous winners). I tagged the article a year ago and suggested it should be redirected as IPs were constantly adding badly referenced WP:PROMO material about his other business interests, but when I WP:BOLDLY redirected it a few days ago, having not had any response to my notices, User:Robert McClenon felt it was better to send to AfD. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only seeing now that it was also at AfD a third time (that AfD wasn't logged on the Talk Page) where it was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Madden (Jeopardy! contestant) (3rd nomination). Having read the sourcing that was provided for the 3rd AfD, I think it was pretty weak, and a redirect, to his entry on List of Jeopardy! contestants#David Madden would be a better solution. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Arts, Television, and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Archibald[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article recreated by WP:SPA following deletion a year and a half ago. I am bringing this to the community's attention. I am personally a weak delete: somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Dili[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historic hotel in East Timor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chashni (TV series)[edit]

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINIDA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panasonic Connect[edit]

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

Deprod by @MSMST1543:. There are lots of press releases available, with announcements similar to what's already cited, but nothing in-depth about the company itself. I do not believe this article would be able to meet WP:NCORP. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallflower (band)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article since 2011. Searching for refs is difficult as there is a more successful band called "The Wallflowers", but even after including band members names into the search it seems like they received no coverage. Nothing in the article writeup suggests Wikipedia notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the original article author. Happy to have article deleted. Band came to an end in 1998 with little notable activity.

(talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Timor[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Travel and tourism, and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficient sourcing, this is particularly good. It's got quite an interesting history with the role it played in a number of conflicts in East Timor, which has been covered in numerous sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Agro Beach Resort[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the nominator considers that all the hotels and resorts in Bintan Regency fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brazell[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'd say there's enough in those sources to keep the article for now, given the player has only debuted this season as there will likely be more coverage in the coming future. Wouldn't be against draftifying, but also a suitable redirect at List of South Australian representative cricketers also, so two suitable WP:ATDs. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think 1 and 2 are something which cover independently about the subject, plus there are other refs in the article. These can be considered as enough, since the player debuted just in this season, more coverage is likely to come in future if he continues playing. In terms of SNGs, it meets WP:NCRIC as well. Robo^CricLet's chat 05:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The South Australian Cricket Association and Cricket Australia are not independent of the subject. The former directly administers the South Australia cricket team that he plays on, and is affiliated with the latter. Given his young age, I support draftification as an ATD, as well as the redirect suggested by Rugbyfan22. JTtheOG (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Although, they cover directly about the subject, the problem is that those are primary sources. Those contain useful information, so I linked those. However, apart from these two, I guess this is a secondary source which discusses about the topic, his education qualification and also his performance. I just wanted to say that since he debuted in this season, all these can be considered enough for a keep. Anyway, if the consensus reached by other editors is not to keep it, then I'll agree with a redirect. Thanks. Robo^Cric Let's chat 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~, not enough independent secondary material to meet GNG but there may be in the near future.
Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclined to agree with Rugbyfan22 on this one. AA (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or redirect to the list of SA cricketers. Drafting this serves zero benefit really - it'll just end up getting deleted as no one will remember the draft is there. If there's not enough coverage for now then redirecting is the normal response in situations such as this - much easier to reverse a redirect and restore the page before adding the additional sources that are likely to appear if he continues to play. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To better summarize the sources in question, there are a couple sentences of coverage here, though it's mostly quotes, and four-ish sentences of coverage here. Both are from The Advertiser so they should be counted as one source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCKV-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: a 25-year-old station is probably more likely to have the required significant coverage, but this topic area's inclusion standards are no longer based on existence and the mere possibility that there are sources — they require SIGCOV and the definitive existence of same. Unless better sourcing emerges than directories, FCC records, and non-independent sources, an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion is the best that can be done. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG, including [[41]][[42]] Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list That's not SIGCOV. That's mostly regurgitated press releases. About the only substantive fact I learned was that this was once a FamilyNet affiliate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talakayan Ng Bayan[edit]

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

Article unreferenced since 2009 and tagged as such since 2010. No good hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Found several false positive as Talakayan ng Bayan means "People's Dialogue" and is used by several entities aside from DWBL. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I created the article almost 15 years ago without being aware about WP:GNG. I haven't touched the article since then. Safe to say, I barely found any source about the now-defunct radio show. ASTIG 😎🙃 13:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the creator agrees the topic isn’t notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If it is a rebroadcaster, merge to the parent station. Otherwise, merge to the owner. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge to. The owner doesn't even have an article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see any redirect or merge target. Let'srun (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this is mentioned at list of television stations in Washington (state)#Translators, it is as as relay of K36EW-D, which does not have (and never has had) an article. I suppose the whole Blue Mountain Television operation is a run-of-the-mill religious station that does have some locally/regionally-produced material and is not entirely national programming, but lacks the significant coverage we require. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

KAJS-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: It had been a while since the last nomination of a run-of-the-mill 2010s-established nothing-local DTV America/HC2/Innovate station that nominally survived a 2023 bulk nomination; as ever, the amount of significant coverage and the likelyhood of SIGCOV are the same (i.e. zero). No reason to have anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K32NM-D[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of over-the-air HSN affiliates: It's another run-of-the-mill Ventana Television station that has only ever carried HSN, HSN-related networks, QVC and its related networks (after they became sister networks to HSN), and a random .6 Dabl affiliation. This has never really warranted anything beyond an {{R to list entry}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, and Visual arts. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other potentially notable people with this name, including fr:François Mathieu, a French senator, as well as a Quebec sculptor. I don't see an article about this painter in the French Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon[edit]

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

As per the notability guidelines for authors, an author is notable if: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of the preceding apply in this case and almost all the sources in the article are not independent. There are almost no reviews of his work and the awards he has won are not notable. The only significant coverage is of his legal issues. Ynsfial (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Spirituality, Hungary, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Stuff article certainly establishes that he's notable, although the focus of it is on his child molestation convictions. The award from the Ashton Wylie Charitable Trust might be notable given that it's in conjunction with the New Zealand Society of Authors, which is definitely notable.-Gadfium (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the Stuff article establishes his notability as an author. It's mostly about his convictions as you said. I'm struggling to find any reviews or analysis of his work. Even if the award is given in conjunction with the NZSA I don't think it's enough to confer notability. Do you think it is? It might also be worth noting that Vallyon himself is a member of the New Zealand Society of Authors, a membership he pays for.~~~ Ynsfial (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gadfium is not arguing that he is notable as an author. Gadfium is talking about GNG. Schwede 66 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood, sorry. What other sources do we have for GNG then? We would need multiple. Will we be establishing his notability as a criminal if not as an author? or as a spiritual guru and leader? The only significant coverage in general seems to be that Stuff article, which focuses on his history of sexual assault. It's not unusual for a local newspaper to cover local criminals and crimes.

The article consists of primarily sourced biographical information, a list of books with no analysis or reviews and a mention of a minor prize. If we were to remove the Scoop article, a local paper detailing his criminal convictions, what would his notability be based on GNG or otherwise? Ynsfial (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Source 6 is a book review in a RS, this in a Seattle newspaper discusses the author and his work [43], should be at basic notability. Discussed here [44] in a RS from New Zealand. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider Horror News Net a reliable source, see How to Get Your Book or Comic Reviewed on (HNN) Horrornews.net? and How to Expedite your Film Review? Their About us states:
"HNN simply is a means for your film, product, book or studio to have existence on the internet. Whether bad or good, a product without existence in the search engines is simply without relevance. You work hard to create something, while we work hard to create a site that provides existence for your items."

It's used as a reference on dozens if not hundreds of articles, so this should be brought up on the WP:RSN.

The review in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is a republished one from Blogcritics. Archived discussions on WP:RSN seem to indicate that it hasn't really been considered reliable the times it was brought up since it seems to accept content from any blogger. The website's About us states:
"Blogcritics gives writers the opportunity to gain an exponentially higher level of visibility (and thus, traffic and search rank) than they could ever achieve through their home blog or website alone." Mooonswimmer 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS to meet WP:GNG. The two reviews mentioned above by Oaktree b (the only ones I could find) are published in unreliable sources and are likely paid pieces. I'd say the Stuff article counts towards WP:GNG, but it's all I could find. The two awards he's won are minor and of debatable notability. Mooonswimmer 03:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre[edit]

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely fascinating! Please do not merge with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of East Timor, London[edit]

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

One sentence-stub that completely fails WP:GNG. Sole source is a government list of diplomatic missions in London. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Not notable enough for an article but notable enough for a list entry and redirecting to that is better for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on redirecting this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Installer VISE[edit]

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

The article does not align with the English Wikipedia's criteria for both WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSOFT. The sources used in the article are mainly either primary sources or focus on the company rather than the software. An earlier attempt in 2011 to remove the article was made due to the lack of detailed and in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Currently, there is still a lack of widespread coverage in reliable sources for this article. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion cannot be soft deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shadow311 you relisted this saying that articles that have been proposed for deletion cannot be soft deleted, yet this exact soft deletion has already happened for two other articles for which the deletion has been proposed by the exact same user: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMCO MSI Package Builder and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero Install, so how is it at the end of the day?!? Thanks! --Vlad|->

@Vlad: We're at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is different from Wikipedia:Proposed deletion.

~~Comment~~ Keep - After looking at the nominator's edit history, I'm a little worried that there is some sort of vendetta, ulterior motives or conflict of interest going on here where aside from creating a couple of Armenian articles this editor appears to just be trying to delete installation technology-related articles. Many of the articles that the nominator has suggested for deletion have been on Wikipedia for many years - in the case of the WiX article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WiX) it must rank among the oldest articles having been started in 2004, so my question is why are these all being nominated for deletion all of a sudden? TubularWorld (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It is easy to find independent WP:RS of very reasonable quality. For example, here is an article in an IEEE publication reviewing a different installer and using Vise as a reference point for comparisons: [45]. --Викидим (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any suggestions in keeping this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 06:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my vote to keep after having done a little more research into this software (and added a few things to the article). It appears that this was quite popular 20 something years ago, even to the point that Apple themselves distributed their own software using it. TubularWorld (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu[edit]

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

This was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Chevallier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD many years ago, and nothing of substance seems to have changed: my WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet the GNG (just a handful of blogs, interviews, etc.), and none of the WP:NARTIST criteria appear to be met. Not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and France. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good sources that show notability. The article itself has a lot of sources, but they are basically all low quality and/or primary. Cortador (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The organization does not appear to pass WP:GNG The only references not published by the organization itself is a trivial mention in the NYT and a profile of the editor, Katie Cook, in bpfna.org, who was (at the time) an editor of bpfna.org as well. While there is a list of articles under the "Further Reading" section, one of the articles was written by a student newspaper, one from Baptists Today, and the others all seem to be limited to the Waco Tribune-Herald. They are mostly from the 1990s- and I have been able to find no significant coverage since.

This is the second deletion debate this article will go through- but editors should note that the only two "keep" votes came from new accounts that did not edit anything but their own user page and the deletion discussion. While that has no bearing on the organization's notability, new Wikipedia editors will want to read the policies on canvassing and recruiting people off-Wiki before they contribute. (Unless you want to provide more sources- please, if you have them, I would like them very much) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Texas. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Montgomery mayoral election[edit]

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

Only a single source, not enough to demonstrate notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Alabama. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable mayoral election (in fact, this is the first I ever heard of it). TH1980 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:POLOUTCOMES. I tried several searches and yet found nothing at all. In the past, we have generally redirected individual non-notable candidates to the election article, and I see no reason why we can't do vice-versa to Bobby Bright. Bearian (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more points of view on whether the proposed redirect and its target article are acceptable. I've never come across an election article being redirected to a candidate's page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one source and it's an excel file, only a city election, nothing to ATD here. SportingFlyer T·C 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that other mayoral elections in Montgomery have articles, thus I suggest all these articles should be Merged to a new election overview article, Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama. Possibly something similar to Mayoral elections in Chattanooga, Tennessee or Mayoral elections in Evansville, Indiana? Samoht27 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for 2009 and 2011 (those should have been included here), but 2015 feels that it has decent coverage Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a newly-created Mayoral elections in Montgomery, Alabama as that's the general practice for mid-sized American cities. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boss (Metal Gear)[edit]

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

The current sources at reception were just listicles and rankings. I tried to find any sources about this character per WP:BEFORE, but I cannot find any sigcov. Relying mostly with this single journal here [46] wouldn't help notability. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Greenish Pickle! (🔔) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Science fiction and fantasy. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Conyo. This article isn't meeting notability as of right now. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of the Metal Gear series#Introduced in Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater as an WP:ATD. I found a GameRant article [47] but not sure if this would really count. I'm also not sure if GameRant is reliable or not. Conyo14 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is situational as a source, but Valnet sources does not help notability according to WP:VG/RS. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 03:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, half a source. But my !vote shall remain merge. Conyo14 (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. There is some sourcing but it's questionable whether it reaches WP:SIGCOV. This can be covered at the main game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] She has also been discussed with sigcov in these lists: [53] [54] [55] [56] I have not looked into any book or scholar sources yet, nor have I checked Japanese sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the Kotaku and IGN looks good, thou other sources doesn't really help GNG, but can also he used to improve the article further. So, I feel like the article is barely notable for now but is still in weak state. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After checking further, I felt like I'm satisfied a bit with the sources that were brought here now. But, I'll let afd stay here let others state their opinions here. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've decided to create a source analysis of Cukie's sources, and it has changed my !vote:

Source analysis by Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
The Memory Card .15: Snake pulls the trigger	Plot WP:SUMMARY/brief routine mention of a plot. N
[57]	Brief analysis, but uncertain of reliability. Partial otherwise.
Breaking Down my Favorite Boss Fights of all Time	WP:BLOG N
Best Metal Gear Solid Boss of All Time Face-Off: The Winner Revealed	Although it is a ranking, there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV Y
La legendaria soldado The Boss]	Meristation is considered reliable and the article does not read like a blog. Y
The 10 Greatest Final Bosses in Video Games	Brief mention, not in-depth analysis.
The best boss fights involve getting picked on by someone your own size	WP:BLOG N
Seven Video Games Where You Beat Up Your Dad	Brief, but maybe on the line between partial and full. I'll put it as good. Y
The 25 most inspirational female characters in games	WP:ROUTINE N

Not that it matters to affecting your !vote, the Game Developer blog is one that was chosen as a featured blog by GD editorial staff, and the author is a published SME in gaming. As far as The Mary Sue goes, it is listed as a reliable source on WP:RSP. I also do not believe that the use of WP:ROUTINE is appropriate; none of the citations I listed are news sources, all of these sources were posted years after release, written (presumably) because the author wanted to write about it. The Destructoid source, for example, is written as part of a series of significant parts of video games for their staff, with the author saying things like "Shooting The Boss, while over in a blink of an eye, really is a pretty innovative and surprisingly memorable moment. While it could have easily been incorporated into the always impressive cutscenes, making one, small creative decision to have the player perform this final killing shot makes the scene infinitely more powerful" as well as discuss the relationship between the player, Snake, and The Boss, their musing over whether the player is required to kill her or just let her die, and speculation on what Kojima was intending to depict by making the player execute her. I would strongly dispute the notion that ROUTINE applies in any capacity here. WP:SUMMARY also applies to an extent, but not to the entirety. The source is being utilized not for the description of the plot of The Boss, but for the author's feelings on her and her death. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the thread for The Mary Sue? Conyo14 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions should be linked on the perennial sources page in The Mary Sue's entry - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it [58]. I will update the source analysis. Conyo14 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the keep !votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed above by Cukie Gherkin. X (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Little Rock tornado[edit]

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

Article was not at all ready for mainspace and it currently fails WP:LASTING. Practically the entire article is a direct copy and paste from the meteorological synopsis and damage summary for this tornado in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023. This article was created by me, in draftspace, doing a direct copy/paste of the damage summary so I could locate LASTING impacts (14,000 bytes). In this edit an anonymous user copy/pasted the entire meteorological synopsis section from the outbreak article (11,000 bytes). To note, the article is only 26,000 bytes. The entire article is a CONTENTFORK copy/paste, which was not ready for mainspace at all and was being edited by SOCKS. Either delete or draftify back like it was, but it clearly should not be an article right now. As a second note, the draft was submitted to AFC by a user who had not edited the article at all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move back to draft Why didn't you just move back to draft? This was unnecessary. ChessEric 06:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric: If it was moved rather than deleted, I would want it as a userspace draft not actual draftspace. The issue here is in the draftspace, SOCKS (both Andrew5 & Lokicat) find it and try to "improve it", plus even if it wasn't pure anonymous SOCKS involved, there is copyright issues involved (due to the copy/pasting mess) and people were able to get it through AfC from draft-space into mainspace without me, the original draft creator, even being aware. With all that, this is more of a TNT method (i.e. delete it and then redo it in userspace). Heck, the whole thing as it is right now is a copy/paste from the outbreak article so in 5 seconds, I could redo it in userspace. So yeah, don't think of this AfD as a true "delete it due to lack of notability", but more of a TNT request that is also using notability and the dang copyright and copy/paste issues as the backing for that TNT request. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you should have just put it in draft and rewritten or paraphrased some of it. Plus, the event details are fine and the section on the main page can be shortened. Plus, believe it or not, the SOCKS have actually made some helpful edits. The AfD was not the way to go. Plus, this tornado inflicted significant damage along its path in a major metropolitan area, so I think it will easily meet WP:Lasting. I'm not saying an article is guaranteed though. ChessEric 13:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t doubt that and again, I’m not saying this won’t get an article. For reference this entire edit is a copyright violation. Making it a draft again will not get rid of that. The SOCk reverted edit is also a copyright violation, as both are just a copy/paste of another Wikipedia article without any reference that content came from another article. That could be easily solved with an inter-wiki link, but it just makes the edit history weird and talk page weird. Legit, the history itself needs to be TNTed and then as this is at this point a near 100% direct copy/paste, I could create User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado with a copy/paste of the damage summary and basically restart the whole thing before the SOCKs came along. Did they help? Sure. Did they save maybe 5 minutes of work only though? Yes. It is better to literally TNT this, get rid of the copyright violation and just restart. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a courtesy ping for ChessEric. Just for reference look at User:WeatherWriter/2023 Little Rock tornado. The new draft, made in minutes, is already 3,000 bytes larger than this article and doesn’t involve the SOCKs in the edit history nor the two very large copyright violations. The TNT is basically to clean-up the SOCKs and copyright violations from the edit history, since chances are high, the draft was pushed into mainspace by one of the two SOCKs well before any clean-up edits could occur. So yeah, don’t think of this AfD as anything with notability. This is truly a WP:TNT to remove the SOCKs from play. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section in Tornado outbreak of March 31–April 1, 2023. We are becoming way too lax in giving individual tornadoes article. In no way should this, 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado have standalone articles. Stand alone articles should only be if the information absolutely cannot fit in the section, such as the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I highly doubt that this article can be much more than a WP:CFORK of the section. The readable prose is around 53,000 bytes, which per WP:ARTICLESIZE puts it in a grey area if a split is needed. But I don’t think this is the tornado, given its limited impact. A redirect to the section is a good idea because it’s highly unlikely this tornado will achieve notability outside of the tornado outbreak. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC) (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Due to the copyright violations as mentioned above, we could either do a delete and redirect closure, or WP:RD1 the copyright violations. 148.76.84.29 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)~~ (Confirmed and now-blocked SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some laundry-free discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'm confused by the nominator's stance here. You state "Either delete or draftify back like it was" but in the discussion comments, it looks like you are arguing against a move to Draft space. Please be clearer because if draftifying (to any previous version) is acceptable, then we can close this AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per usual, WeatherWriter is endlessly yapping about irrelevant crap that makes the discussion impossibly hard to follow. His rants can be found in numerous AFDs and discussions, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midwestern U.S. floods and tornado outbreak of June 2021. User should likely be topic banned for disruptive editing at this point. 99.196.129.143 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) (SOCK strikethrough.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just semi'ed it so we reach a consensus without socks. I have relisted this but don't consider myself involved. Star Mississippi 00:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any thoughts from more independent editors?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seekda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent reliable sources about this niche software company in the article, and I am seeing nothing in a search that is not promotional. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Travel and tourism, Internet, Software, and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG obviously. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barlaston Parish Council[edit]

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

Lowest-level local government authority in England - there are more than 10,000 parish councils and they are rarely notable. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. No secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barlaston I agree small parish councils generally don't need separate articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parish council is already covered at Barlaston, so there's nothing to merge from what I can see. AusLondonder (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Anguilla, London[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No sources at all other than a listing of diplomatic missions in London. Fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage to meet GNG. Article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#British Overseas Territories. That already contains the address so there is nothing to merge, but given the list does exist there is no benefit in deletion over redirection. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe a redirect is necessary here, this is not a very plausible search term. AusLondonder (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly disagree, we have content about this topic so it benefits us to make that content easy to find. If the topic was notable enough for an article it would be at this title, so this is a search term people will likely use to find it, and the presence of the redirect will discourage recreation of an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club[edit]

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

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khadija Mbowe[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a YouTuber, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for YouTubers. As usual, YouTubers are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work -- but three of the seven footnotes here are the subject's own self-published content about themself on YouTube or their own website, and one more is a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization they've been directly affiliated with, all of which are primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
Meanwhile, the other three footnotes are a Q&A interview in which they're talking about themself in the first person (which would be acceptable as verification of additional facts after GNG had already been covered off by stronger sourcing, but is not itself contributing to passage of GNG as it still represents the subject talking about themself); one brief glancing namecheck of their existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about something other than themself, which isn't support for notability; and just one source that's actually represents third-party analysis about Khadija Mbowe in any meaningful sense, but is too short to singlehandedly clinch passage of GNG all by itself if it's the only strong source in the mix.
Obviously this is without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when an article can be sourced better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nominator said it all. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per a very detailed nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level[edit]

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

Another WP:DICTDEF. I couldn't even find any usage of this phrase outside dictionary definitions. Not sure if there is a reasonable redirect target; maybe it could be moved to Wiktionary. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Traders Company[edit]

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

Article about a company, not properly sourced as passing WP:NCORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- but the only source cited here is a single book in which this company gets mentioned but is not the principal subject, which is not enough all by itself, and the article has existed in this state since 2013, and been tagged as single-sourced since 2018, without ever having a second source added. And on a WP:BEFORE search, I found a few brief glancing namechecks of its existence in The Globe, but nothing substantive or detailed enough to make up the difference: mostly what I found was coverage about sick or dead people who had been employees of the company, not coverage about the company. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per the included source, the company seems to have been more commonly called Northern Trading Company. I got some more hits, especially newspaper hits, under this name. Ravendrop 05:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Grove, Indiana[edit]

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

This was back-entered onto the maps from GNIS, which cites an 1876 atlas of the state. Baird's History of Clark County, Indiana on p. 100 has a very brief reference to it as a post office, and I found nothing else of relevance other than that there was a school there at some point. I just don't see that there was ever a settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No information found; furthermore, the coordinates don't match the description in Baird's, which says Sylvan Grove was one quarter mile south of Memphis, while the coordinates are for a site about a mile southeast of Memphis. Someone made a mistake somewhere, and we might be able to figure out where if we had information, which we do not. Thus, delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (Daet)[edit]

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

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good hits on GSearch, GNews and GBooks. GNews Archives gave an article about the family of doctors who founded the hospital from a small clinic. However, I'm not sure that that is enough to warrant notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Glen[edit]

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

The only reference for this stub biography of a footballer is a database entry, so this stub no longer satisfies sports notability and does not satisfy general notability. Draftification will provide six months to find significant coverage.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while I am aware of the changed notability criteria, seems a bit odd to go straight to AfD for a subject like this where the article already existed for some years under the old rules, would it not be more appropriate to tag for verification first, then move up from that if not acted on? It seems very likely this player will appear in the British Newspaper Archive and there are far more 'deserving' nominations from this era than an international player and cup winner? I have added refs that indicate his prominence, but appreciate they would not satisfy SIGCOV. Crowsus (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absurd nomination. This player represented his country and won national competitions. If that doesn't satisfy notability then this place is a complete waste of time. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. 200 professional appearances in England and Scotland, a Scotland international, there is coverage out there including in Paul Smith's book about Scotland players - silly nomination. Good work by Crowsus and JM on expanding. Giant Snowman 09:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again the Keeps make n:football arguments despite it being abolished in 2022. I struggled to find coverage of him let alone significant coverage. The book is one source (if that) meaning he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I struggle to find coverage of him" - apart from the 13 refs in the article? Do you really think that a player with 200 professional appearances in 1890s/1900s will not have been mentioned in any newspapers that (shockingly!) don't appear online 130 years later? We have lost all WP:COMMONSENSE if this article is deleted. Giant Snowman 21:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the refs to stat websites? The refs to mentions in match reports? All of which don't count when it comes to passing GNG. Mentions in newspapers is irrelevant as it is sigcov that is required. Dougal18 (talk) 09:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two books about the history of Hibernian FC describing Glen's career and playing style isn't significant coverage? Come off it. You just don't like articles about footballers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hibees has 13 hits for Glen. The making of Hibernian has one hit. Those are not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in four published books isn't significant coverage? I'm wondering what you would consider that to be. A book about the player himself?!? Demanding that level of coverage would lead to the deletion of the vast majority of biographies on this site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would strongly agree with User:GiantSnowman's and User:Jmorrison230582's points. I think it would be odd for us not to have an article about a Scotland international who clearly is covered in published sources. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been updated, clearly notable player, easily passes WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Paul Smith's book It already seemed to be enough for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, also has fine sources that attribute significant coverage. Noorullah (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Responding to Jmorrison230582, the article didn't say that his team won national competitions when I nominated it for deletion, and the nomination was not absurd. Govvy is correct that the article has been updated. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Perhaps I should have said that the Heymann criterion was to provide significant coverage in seven days, but perhaps that should be implied. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction speed[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. Since this term seems to be used in several different contexts, it can redirect to Reproduction (disambiguation). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Tables[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. A search for "AFL Tables" will show up thousands of webpages which reference statistics from this online database, but no references which actually give significant coverage about the database as a subject, which is the benchmark which must be met under WEBCRIT. Google searching "paul jeffs afl tables" is a better search term to look for SIGCOV about the database (since any genuine SIGCOV would include Jeffs' name as the site's creator), and the best that shows up a few appreciative one-liner posts in public forums and on other stats databases - nothing which meets GNG's requirements of significance and independence. I don't see any valid alternative to deletion; there's no merge or redirect target that makes sense, and issue of lack of references can't reasonably be solved by draftifying. Aspirex (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Websites, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a longstanding draft at User:Teratix/Australian rules football analytics which I really, really need to finish and move into mainspace at some point. I did a bit of searching for sources covering AFL Tables as part of my research, and it does get a mention in James Coventry's Footballistics (p. 265):

[...] there are also a few publicly curated databases, the best of which is the brilliant AFL Tables maintained by Paul Jeffs. Jeffs' database includes, among other information, results from every AFL/VFL match since 1897, detailed player statistics dating back to 1965, and round-by-round Brownlow voting records from 1984 onwards. "It's a nice dataset, I can say that," said Dr Lenten. "It gives me good bang for my buck because it's possible to look at a number of problems."

(Aside: Footballistics; amazing book, excellent source of information on modern Australian football. Doesn't have a fucking index. I had to skim through all 362 pages to find that paragraph the first time.)

As to what should happen to the article... I agree it probably doesn't meet the GNG. That paragraph's not enough. I also agree there's no mainspace target for redirection or a merger. But I think an article on Australian rules football analytics ("statistics"? I'm still undecided) would be an obvious place to briefly discuss AFL Tables. So, uh, this may be a bit unorthodox, but how would we feel about merging it to my draft? I would be happy to move it into draftspace proper if Gibbsyspin preferred. – Teratix ₵ 12:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would work. It would need to be its own fairly standalone subsection within the analytics article, to ensure that the thousands of wikilinks which may be put in article reflists are directed somewhere specific rather than to a general analytics page. As long as that's achievable, I think that's a valid option. Aspirex (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News Bites[edit]

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

Unreferenced since its inception in 2010. No notable hits in GBooks, GNews Archives, and GNews. Be prepared for a lot of false positives in your search due to how common "News Bites" is as a phrase. Weak Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 as plausible target per WP:ATD. Weak as there are a lot of similarly named programs/media entities found during my Google Search. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and also not notable enough to be on wikipedia ^48JCLTalk 00:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News 23[edit]

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2012. No notable hits in GBooks, GNews Archives, and GNews. Be prepared for a lot of false positives in your search due to how common "News 23" is as a phrase. Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 as plausible target per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Studio 23 Yet another rebadged ABS-CBN newscast whose only difference was its demographic. Nate • (chatter) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Tregear[edit]

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reject: Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article, you have serious bias ^48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ebb and Flow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article. I couldn't find any significant coverage on the web; it's tough to search for them as their name is shared with a few other groups, but by including band members I found only a very brief Q&A on sfgate.com and an album review on aural-innovations.com, neither of these seem like WP:SIGCOV and nothing in the article suggests notability per WP:BAND InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. InDimensional (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as they do have a staff written AllMusic bio here which states that they had a nationwide tour which is one of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's just not enough to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentecostal Mission[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG - I could not find significant coverage of this church in reliable sources independent of the subject. HenryMP02 (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, Sri Lanka, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep am finding some reliable sources coverage such as this, I haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep have added references and is a century old church founded in 1923 feel the resources will be offline. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I see where you are coming from. This is probably a case where the sources do exist, but may be difficult to find initially. HenryMP02 (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lion mask[edit]

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

Long-time unreferenced article. I am not sure if there is an overall concept/topic of 'lion mask' or sources to show its notability. Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This does seem to be a recognized motif in art. That was just from the first few hits for "lion mask" + "motif" on Google books, there are quite a few more. I wouldn't oppose it being merged into something but there does seem to be discussion and analysis of lion mask motifs. Admittedly there isn't a lot of useful content here, but something can be said about the topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is a nice base article to work from. A stub, but an encyclopedic stub. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if we're going to keep it, could we at least find some sources to cite? This article has gone entirely unreferenced since its creation almost twenty years ago. Any decent sources would at least demonstrate that it's a distinct topic worthy of inclusion somewhere in Wikipedia. This AfD would seem to provide a good opportunity to locate some. P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and section redirect to Cultural depictions of lions. Noteworthy, possibly notable, but better off as a section of a larger relevant article. BD2412 T 01:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with the suggestion to merge. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lion mask seems to be a notable concept in art/history as per sources cited above. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 A-League Women finals series[edit]

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

Almost all of the article is already shown in the 'parent' article 2023–24 A-League Women, aside from a separate map with the subset of the teams that made the finals, so there is scant additional relevant information in this Fork to warrant a stand-alone article. The level of detail is equivalent to that shown in articles of previous seasons of the A-League Women Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

[1]