Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10

< June 09	June 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rabinky

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

None of the information in this article is sourced, the "references" are just links to Rabinky's artwork. A Google search only produces links to websites selling her artwork, although I did find this press release on Google News about a distinction she seems to have won. I'm unsure of its notability. In any case, I haven't found anything else. (NB: Sorry for resubmitting, was interrupted when I did it the first time and it was deleted.) WikiFouf (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Architecture, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's basically a CV/resumé, of a busy artist with a knack for self-publicity, but with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST Sionk (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely promotional as written. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Handball at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters. as an ATD. If a different redirect target article is preferred, that can be discussed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jana Jamnicky

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. It should also be noted Australia only got to play handball in 2000 Olympics as host nation. They lost every game. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Handball, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Slovakia, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Ping me if sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Handball at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. All of the sources in the article are primary and a WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything better. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Not really any history worth preserving as it's all just a rephrasing of a database. (Except for the family connection, which should be mentioned at her daughter's future(?) page because the daughter seems more accomplished, among others a 5th place at the PAG.) Furthermore, Jamnicky and many of the other 2000 Olympic players played at the 1999 World Women's Handball Championship as well, making it less clear where to redirect to, although the Olympics were on home ground. Geschichte (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with above. Whilst she played in the 1999 world championships, Australia lost all their games there as well. The performance of this team is quite insignificant. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Handball at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's team rosters per WP:ATD. She is not named in 1999 World Women's Handball Championship, so no issue there. Ingratis (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ennepetal hostage taking

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

Article on a hostage taking that lasted one day from 19 years ago, created the day of the hostage taking, uncited even then. Article has sat largely untouched for the past two decades. There are sources exclusively from the day this happened. The only thing I found that wasn't from the actual day this occurred was a 1 paragraph mention in a list of German hostage crises from 2010, which does not have enough detail to build an article from.

Fails WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Germany. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't speak German but I'm not seeing a reason to think this has lasting coverage. WP:NOTNEWS JMWt (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article doesn't seem to cover a topic that has significance importance. Deletion might be the best course of action here. Waqar💬 17:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 SPA Cup

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

An inter school cricket competition that fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Similar AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SPA Cup (2nd nomination) LibStar (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to pass general notability guidelines as well as with the lack of significant coverage in any reliable and independent sources to the subject Fade258 (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, coverage for the main tournament is incredibly limited, let alone for a season article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent tournament isn't even notable, this single season of it definitely isn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. AA (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Walkingshaw

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

Scottish women's footballer that fails WP:GNG. The She Kicks and Daily Record references already in the article are the closest to WP:SIGCOV I could find, and they each have just a few sentences of routine coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. While opinion was pretty evenly split, those editors arguing to Keep failed to provide reliable sources that could be used to establish notability, even when asked multiple times by other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SadaPay

AfDs for this article:

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

Every reference is PR and churnalism. Every reference is a PR announcement. Fails WP:NCORP and the key tenet of WP:V. This is WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Pakistan, and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My delete !vote stands. I am still not satisfied with all the sources presented so far to establish WP:NORG for SadaPay. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: I've nominated for deletion the BLP of the founder of Sadapay, but I believe this article about the company should be kept. Considering the sign./in-depth press coverage the company has garnered - such as Pakistan Today, Pakistan Today, Bloomberg. Express Tribune - the company may meet WP:GNG. Fwiw, it is Pakistan's most-funded fintech. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single reference is regurgitated PR. With this referencing it fails. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timtrent, Well the coverage provided by Pakistan Today consists of investigative stories rather than press releases. And, Bloomberg typically doesn't cover Pakistani companies unless they are making some impacts. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first Pakistan Today ref is a lightly-rephrased press release. Compare this and this. The second, of course, is an entirely-routine funding announcement failing WP:ORGTRIV. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic, Alright, you've sold me. Count me in! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib Did you mean only to strike your !vote and not enter a different opinion? 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE it, I say! I'm also not very convinced it meets WP:NCORP. Saqib (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the subject meets the WP:ORGCRIT. Mfarazbaig (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mfarazbaig The references must show this. They do not. Your argument is WP:ILIKEIT which carries no weight in this discussion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago we deleted this because it was almost entirely unsourced and the only sources anybody could find were press releases and routine announcements. Now we have a new article with mostly those same sources in them - not even new marketing material and reports of funding, but the same ones that were available and rejected before. The few that postdate the deletion are no better: Ref 7 is an announcement of an acquisition consisting almost entirely of quotes with the remaining two sentences verbatim from a press release; ref 8 is better-written, but still an announcement of the same acquisition and still routine; and ref 9 is an unreliable piece by a "Forbes contributor". The lack of improvement is so stark that I seriously considered G4ing it again. Delete. —Cryptic 14:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just a quick browse I found references articles that are not press release.--Cube b3 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, tell us what they are and we can consider them. I'm willing to be convinced. I'm even, within reason, willing to help you convince me! But with neither evidence nor analysis, bare assertions like yours and Mfarazbaig's (the article creator) above are worth nada. —Cryptic 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Cube b3 I'm in total agreement with @Cryptic on this. Convince us. Otherwise this is a worthless !vote, which I am sure is not what you intended. I did a search, quite a detailed one, and found none. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any editor may, during this discussion,especially when they declare that they have foiund good new references, improve the article and ask for it to be reconsidered under Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard once improved. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Profit by Pakistan Today magazine is direct, in-depth, and balanced ([1], [2]). Then, there is additional coverage in DAWN ([3], [4]) and Bloomberg described it as the country's most-funded fintech in a routine funding round (such type of startups are almost always notable in the UK or US). WP:COMMONSENSE applies. 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:908F:F69C:81E4:3987:8686:1121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to see a review of sources brought to the discussion by the IP editor. Other Keep votes making assertions without providing citations are not worth much at all
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage provided by IP fails WP:SIRS. Saqib (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is exactly what WP:SIRS requires, quoted below:

1. Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth.
2. Be completely independent of the article subject.
3. Meet the standard for being a reliable source.
4. Be a secondary source; primary and tertiary sources do not count towards establishing notability.

This article in Profit was written by its staff and is a more-than-3000-word investigative journalism. This article is also by a staff member, is directly about SadaPay, and is more than 4k words long. I hope you're in good health (with all this hard work) because you're making a lot of wrong assessments and sloppy AfDs lately. Please consider slowlying down and not every comment need your reply (as multiple time requested on your talkpage recently). 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC) — 2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A04:4A43:8FBF:F067:1EFE:2BFF:FEF2:C076, But it's not just me. Both @Timtrent and @Cryptic also turned down the same coverage, dismissing it as "PR," as you can see above. — Saqib (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP - I hadn't voted to delete before, but now I did, because you failed to convince me. Also please try to avoid WP:PA as they're not helpful. Best wishes! --Saqib (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have analysed all the sources. Each is blatant churnalism, all are WP:PRIMARY. Arguments to the contrary cannot stand 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's spam.Tehonk (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The only person who did anything significant to this page is the creator, who has nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:G7. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Mearsheimer bibliography

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

I don’t think this needs an explanation. This should definitely be deleted or merged into the main article. 48JCL TALK 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 48JCL TALK 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an explanation? Ivan (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Knight Windom XP

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

No independent sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROD. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google gave me a bunch of results for unrelated games on ModDB, and WP:LIBRARY isn't really helping. Fails GNG. 🌙Eclipse ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:04, 7 June 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!} 22:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Checked archive.org magazine scans & google, found no coverage. Seems completely non-notable. --Mika1h (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K. S. Narayan Reddy

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

No sources found in brief WP:BEFORE search, so it fails WP:GNG. I lack the knowledge to judge whether the subject "has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" per WP:NPROF. However, even if notability can be established by that criteria, I don't think there are sufficient sources for us to write an article that satisfies WP:V. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. Daask (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to contributors and prior WP:PROD participants: @Kazamzam, Necrothesp, Rajasekhar1961, and Varunmodgil: Daask (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (see below) -- multiple sources attest to being the winner of India's highest award for medical science, the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, awards from the Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine, and other positions that clearly pass multiple WP:PROF categories. Documenting and verifying Indian professorial records can be difficult, but this one seems quite clear. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources to attest to being the winner of the Dr. B.C. Roy Award in 1986 as claimed in the article and per the Dr. B. C. Roy Award page itself, the 1986 award went to Jagjit Singh Chopra with a citation. The other claims and sources mentioned above are not included in the article as of this writing, a basic Google search of the name does not return any mention of said awards besides the textbooks, and the sources that are there are primary and the tone overall does not seem neutral. I think it's possible that this could be noteworthy and meet NPROF but at the moment it does not. Kazamzam (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Changed !vote from above. Kazamzam convinced me to look harder at the B.C. Roy Award claim again (the website was down the first time I looked) and indeed I cannot source it outside of claims from the author. (Thanks Kazamzam!) With that gone, I don't see sufficient notability. Since I was the only "Keep" vote, I think Wcquidditch can end the relist and close as delete. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland Brown Jr.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown Jr.

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. The little significant coverage mentioning this character is not about the character itself, rather focusing on the show at large. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland_Brown_Jr. - The sources currently in the article are extremely weak, either being primary, or a couple sentences from an interview. Searches did not turn up much better - the character is mentioned in general coverage of the show(s) he appeared in, but nothing close to any kind of significant coverage that would justify a independent article. A general overview of both the fictional and real world history of the character is already included in the main franchise character list, so this should be Redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid WP:ATD and redirect target here. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland_Brown_Jr..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecto (software)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, little coverage outside of user-generated sources. Was kept at last AfD but barely improved since. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 17:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Computing, Internet, and Software. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I found a source that gives a brief tutorial on how to use it, but this alone doesn't meet the bar for significant coverage. I can be persuaded to turn this into a Keep vote if someone comes forth with a second source that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSOFT criterion 3: has been reviewed by reliable sources. See [5], [6], [7], [8]. As for the claim these are only user-generated sources, all of the sources I have chosen have articles made by other authors, and are clearly not just blogs. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Matrix These are in fact user blogs. All their articles are published by the same person and no reliable source has mentioned them. c.f. WP:SELFPUB.

~~Weak delete~~ per HA. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: These do not appear to be user blogs. I can provide evidence:

There seem to be a variety of authors on the first link (AppleMatters) ([9], [10], [11] all have different authors), the coverage is independant, and reliable, plus significant coverage. Clearly a reliable review.
Reviewasaurus is a bit harder to discern, but it at least somewhat goes towards GNG or NSOFT. It looks to be independant (both pros and cons are listed), reliable, and significant. It does have the feel of a userblog (with the lack of a font, poor formatting, posted by x message etc.) but it still feels like somewhat reliable coverage.
The third link (NewcommReview) is a comparison between different softwares, but it still goes into depth about Ecto (4-5 paragraphs). This is still significant coverage
The fourth link (Network World) seems to be good progress towards GNG. This seems to be an actual news article, per the main page.

I would say the only the second link could maybe be classed as a blog. Just because there is an author listed at the bottom, doesn't mean the website is a blog. Also if you have a look at all these websites, everything barring the second link has different authors for different articles. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I thought it was the same author because i clicked on 8 links and 4 of them gave me an error. 3 out of the 4 footer links are basically dead. I wouldn't trust this website.
WordPress is right in the footer. Just independent isn't enough, see WP:SELFPUB.
This is also WordPress. "Theme by Brian Gardner" links to a lot of WordPress stuff.

Network World is probably reliable, sorry. It led me to a story in a magazine on archive.org, which definitely counts! It even says it was used for Boing Boing! Keep. Again, sorry. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT is not a community recognized WP:SNG. It's only an essay and doesn't appear to be widely vetted as it doesn't look like it's linked from any guidelines pages. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls NSOFT seems basically like consensus that reviews count towards SIGCOV, which is also found in many other places. The magazine feature isn't a review either. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NSOFT is practically meaningless. I believe a sign of essay having been vetted or having some level of consensus is when it is actually linked from guidelines. This isn't the case with NSOFT. It's essentially one user's original research. If you see the authorship, you'll see overwhelming majority is written by one user. Graywalls (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the magazine feature?
What leads you to think that reviews from RSes don't count towards GNG?
You make it sound like the essay is just a user's unreviewed personal opinion with some copyedits, which is not the case. Only 70% of the page was written by that one person, and discussions like Wikipedia talk:Notability (software)#RfC: On Software Notability. indicate many more eyes and support.

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the Networkworld piece. It's an opinion piece. Since software is a product and WP:NSOFT is not written into WP:SNG, WP:NCORP applies and I don't believe it meets that threshold. I'm maintaining my position that this article should not exist. Graywalls (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being in the opinion column disqualifies it from meeting WP:PRODUCTREV. Reviews are like by definition opinion pieces. WP:SECONDARY even says A book review too can be an opinion.
And again, what about the magazine? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is an opinion? If every piece of news was a statement of fact, news would be boring. A reliable secondary source has a mix of facts and opinion, like this source. Even NYT has a section for opinions. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A professional review by the magazine staff or a column/opinion piece with largely no editorial control are different. A section titled "opinion" is likely the former and shouldn't really count for notability. Software is aproduct. WP:NSOFT is just an essay, so the appropriate guidance on the use of reviews for software is WP:PRODUCTREV Graywalls (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That said, do you agree that the review qualifies for GNG under PRODUCTREV? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not thoroughly evaluated all of them. Applematter looks quite bloggy. The determination of notability anchoring WP:RS can be tough. You could have several foodie friends build a blog and have titles like publisher, editor in chief and such and restaurant and bar articles based on those things have always been a point of contention about all these restaurant articles on Wikipedia. Considering that publication itself doesn't have a Wikipedia article and is not regarded as an authoritative source in other publications, I'm inclined to say its contribution to notability cred is slim. Graywalls (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above. I don't think Applematters, Reviewasaurus and NewcommReview count or are more than just blogs. However, NetworkWorld is very big, and again, the magazine. Other sources aren't the question here. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looking at the sources turned up by others, appears to just meet WP:GNG. Mdann52 (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no action.‎. The minimally-participated discussion here was unanimous to merge with Glossary of German military terms. But without a nomination to delete, AfD is not required. Any editor is welcome to merge as suggested, or to discuss a different editorial approach on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 23:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustierung

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

It seems like this article should be merged into articles about the German and Austrian militaries of various eras, which generally include discussion of uniforms. Just because there is a German word for "military uniform" doesn't mean that word is a distinct topic. We already have military uniform; the military uniforms of German-speaking countries (as opposed to Germany and Austria and Switerland, separately) don't make a natural subtopic of that. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the words listed could just be added to Glossary of German military terms. -- Beland (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Austria, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge terms into Glossary of German military terms as per Beland. Ingratis (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emicho

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

Article is a mess ~~with multiple WP:BLPVIO issues.~~ The seeming lack of information about Count Emicho outside the wall of text about the First Crusade or Rhineland massacres seems to confirm the article lacks WP: NOTABILITY. The article even had a Holocaust reference in it for whatever reason, until I removed it. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salutation yet again, I'm going to CV what I said on your talk page.

"it is obvious to me that the article in question is mostly un-sourced, and what sources it does use are secondary or "primary anonymous accounts" which contradict whatever this person did or at least claimed to have done. I might add also that is a point of contention with the Jewish people since most see him as a barbaric Christian who mindlessly killed their peers, also those "primary anonymous accounts" are allegedly written by Jewish authors, which makes this situation even more concerning. History is not about personal vendettas nor is it about claiming that only one party is to blame while the other is innocent. If those alleged did happen then why does not one Christian author (in the article itself) has wrote about it? More likely Emicho has taken the role of a fall guy to blame everything on him as a reflection of Jewish (justified) hatred of Christians." Ukudoks (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fantastic Mr. Fox, this cannot possibly violate WP:BLP because the subject has been dead for 1,000 years. Curbon7 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"there were many accounts stating the legend that Emicho's soul is guarding the gate of Rhineland" Did he/she even exist to begin with? For such a notorious individual we know close to absolutely nothing about his/her personal life etc. I agree with :@Fantastic Mr. Fox: that we should delete this article or at least modify it entirely and build from there Ukudoks (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A basic Google search for Emicho of Flonheim (which is probably what this article should be titled) exclusively in English returned a plethora which provide WP:SIGCOV, including but not limited to: two journal articles ([12][13]), at least two biographical dictionary entries ([14][15]), and an entire book chapter ([16]). I have not conducted a search in German, but am reasonably confident SIGCOV-providing sources exist in that language too, as this encyclopedia entry lists two German sources including another journal article specifically about him. Curbon7 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those historians are using at least four primary sources which have been alleged to be created by Jewish "anonymous accounts", that is the root of our question. How can we know those anonymous sources were telling the truth? Simply put, we don't know

As I've stated above it is a point of contention with Jewish individuals that use it as ammunition (for good reasons too) against the Crusades and/or Christianity.

Thus while it might have a plethora of secondary sources, it doesn't have a plethora of primary sources that at least have a somewhat coherent timeline with what happened. Ukudoks (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, this argument has absolutely no basis in any WP:P&G. An academic source can certainly be unreliable based on the quality (or lack thereof) of their sourcing, but simply being partially sourced to anonymous primary accounts is not itself damning and is in fact quite regular in historical writing. To quote from WP:SECONDARY: A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. [...] They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. Curbon7 (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect if you look at the references on Emicho's article and Rhineland massacres article it heavily relies on secondary sources. And let us not forget modern biases which cloud almost all historians who work for public institutions, most of them (I'm making an assumption here) are simply regurgitating unrealiable information. Whether or not I can claim what historians are writing and/or telling is the truth or not is irrelevant because all of us know, they are clueless as much as we are.

I think better option is for an independent Wikipedian to look through the surviving archives and find out what really is going on. Ukudoks (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what happening with this article right now, but it used to be perfectly fine. If I remember correctly it was once known as "Emich of Leiningen" but I think it was moved to avoid confusion with another person with the same/a similar name. Anyway he was a real and notable guy and there are plenty of sources about him. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Those "plenty" sources (I assume that you mean secondary and not primary) are not stated on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Ukudoks (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only primary sources I can find on wikipedia (relating to Emicho's role in the massacres) are:

Albert of Aix, Historia Hierosolymitana

Mainz Anonymous

Solomon bar Simson Chronicle

Eliezer bar Nathan Chronicle

While others are secondary and therefore unreliable. Ukudoks (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ukudoks Secondary sources are not unreliable; in many ways, secondary sources are preferable to primary sources, according to the academic or editorial rigor they have been subjected to. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are "preferable" because they suit modern interpretations of politics, public institutions and society. I absolutely agree. Ukudoks (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking, why do I remember the title being Emich of Leiningen? Oh yeah, I'm the one who created this, way back in the olden days, haha. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Bishop: What is your perspective when it comes to primary sources on this peculiar topic? Ukudoks (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same as every other topic. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on primary sources. Judging from your comments here, I have very little confidence that you understand what the primary and secondary sources for this topic are, what primary and secondary sources are in general, or what the mission of Wikipedia is. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless he's some sort of super human that lives for 1000 yrs, I don't think we have to worry about BLP violations. Might not be neutrally written, but AfD isn't cleanup. We have this [17], [18] and the book chapter shown above, it's fine. BDP perhaps, deceased people ? Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that some here do not realize the implications of not using primary sources to back up the crimes he allegedly committed, which is the main point for his existence on Wikipedia Ukudoks (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't use primary sources, we can only use what others have written about this individual. We can't do original research nor draw our own conclusions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck through the BLP statement, I have no clue what was running through my head at the time. The correct wording is that it fails WP:NPOV. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 06:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored the article to its state before Ukodoks made a large number of non-NPOV unsourced changes. Schazjmd (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution, but the question still remains, the page is lacking in primary sources and has an inherent bias to portray Emicho as a evil barbarian who mindlesly killed Jews (which where his fellow Abrhamists btw), if we can at least get a primary source narrative from the Christian side it would "balance" the vendetta present Ukudoks (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But he did kill people, didn't he? You don't need to WP:RGW here, and you certainly haven't help make the article any more neutral yourself. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know, the only party who says he did such a thing (one who is not coherent about where and how he did those horrible things) are the Jewish authors, it doesn't require someone to be a rocket scientist to put 1+1 in order to understand the ramifications at play. As Jews were the most intelligent class during that time period, no ordinary Gentile could challenge their perspective (may it be right or wrong). I'm just being sceptical that is all, if someone can provide us with primary sources (that are not anonymous, as it is a unreliable source) then we can understand what actually happened Ukudoks (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD isn't cleanup. Nothing that can't be fixed by normal editing. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Frodsham

(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. All I found were routine transactional announcements (1, 2). Possible redirect targets include List of St Helens R.F.C. players and List of North Wales Crusaders players. JTtheOG (talk) 21:09, 10 June 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) 21:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sources. Oppose redirects on the basic that he had played for multiple clubs so will be known by different people for playing at different clubs so picking one will be arbitrary. Mn1548 (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After searching online, the only quality coverage is the BBC link that the nominator posted, which I don't think is enough to establish notability. I agree with MN1548's take on the unsuitability of a redirect target. Malinaccier (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYPD Cricket League

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC/WP:OFFCRIC. Non-notable tournament which ran twice, over 15 years ago. No WP:LASTING. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE. AA (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and New York. AA (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3,4 and 6 are perfectly acceptable, with coverage at home and in Australia. Notability is not temporary, but the article does need updating. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one looks to pass WP:GNG with sourcing in the article and more being found in a simple search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article seems to pass WP:GNG and has adequate sourcing. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 01:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Some sources are weak, but the article passes WP:GNG. Waqar💬 17:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evides pubiventris

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

A similar article exists. Kindly redirect to that NBV2010 (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what is the similar article? Esolo5002 (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep UtherSRG (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ref 1 states that a basionym is Chrysodema pubiventris, but there is no article with that name, at least. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organisms, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid species name, as shown at Ref 1. The existence of an article on a genus is not a reason to delete an article on a species. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See Reference 1 on the article. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a directly observed species on its own, so meets WP:NBIOL. Contributor892z (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Bogdan

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Besides the first Google news hit, the rest of the coverage I found was not in depth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as indicated by LibStar, ambassadors are not inheritably notable - lacks any evidence of notable achievements either in that role or prior to their appointment. Cited references just confirm the individual's appointment nothing else. Dan arndt (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any notable events in their career as an ambassador, and none are mentioned in the references either.

ADifferentMan (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO due to a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.

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

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

The result was merge‎ to MLB London Series. RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 MLB London Series

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

Non notable series with no non-routine coverage that can be covered sufficiently at MLB London Series. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the current state of the article is not great, but no non-routine coverage is just an odd thing to say when WP:BEFORE is conducted. Here's CNN, a news site that doesn't often cover baseball. Here's from The Guardian. I could keep going but that seems unnecessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, although "notable" is something of a red herring. Other than the full team rosters, all of this information should be in the MLB London Series article. MLB has demonstrated that neutral-site international games are not so unique that there should be be stand-alone articles for each of them. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue it's about the same as the yearly world series, you have articles about it every year. This has become an annual thing as well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a poor comparison; the World Series decides the MLB champion and therefore receives commensurate coverage in newspaper articles, books, and documentaries produced well after the games are played, with some books (such as [19][20][21]) being dedicated to just one World Series. While it's WP:TOOSOON to say if particular London Series will garner the same sort of coverage, we can say for certain that it doesn't exist yet, and therefore it would be more appropriate to develop a summary of each year's series in the parent article until it becomes clear that standalone articles for each year's series are warranted. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 20:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How is this not notable, when we have pages of hits in RS in both US and UK media? What's already in the article is RS [22], [23], [24], [25], this [26] from French media, a year before the event. It's gotten sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there sustained coverage of the 2023 series, or is the coverage this year of the 2024 London Series? Walsh90210 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While there is sufficient coverage and content to create separate articles for each year of the London Series, the same could probably be said of any MLB regular season series. The location of the games is the thing that is particularly notable, and that aspect can be included in MLB London Series. Since only three series have been played so far, details of each year can comfortably be merged into the parent article at present. I suppose if the series did continue for many years then the main article might become too long and detailed, so at that point we might want to remove things like line scores. --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this wasn't really different from any regular season series apart from the fact the game was held internationally. Can easily be covered in the parent page. SportingFlyer T·C 06:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but not per nom as the individual 2023 series is clearly a notable topic with lasting coverage. However merge per WP:NOPAGE as this and all other years of baseball in Europe can be sufficiently be done o the single parent page. Frank Anchor 01:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Vermeulen

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just found this on this one, so not enough for a GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI era

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

This entire article reads like a WP:CRYSTAL essay and contains nothing that isn't covered better in the many other AI-related articles, most of which are linked. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Remove the speculation and the hyperbole, and there is nothing covered here that isn't already done better elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a platform for crystal-ball gazing essays. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to remove any speculation, I don't believe it belongs in the article or at least should be reworded to be more neutral and merely quoting and documenting the various perspectives of what people and organization are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Economics, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More 'basic machine learning rebranded as a buzzword' WP:PROMO. If there is an age, it doesn't even have shape cognition yet, and that 'period of AI era section'...this is why we have WP:MADEUP, except I'm sure a kid's game would actually be playable compared to this grown adult's invented nonsense. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be noted here that the 'Periods of AI era' section contains blatant WP:OR. It cites a June 2024 publication for the 'nomenclature', while citing an article from 2019 for 'defining events'. The 2019 article (paywalled unfortunately) can not possibly be defining words before they were invented. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No question it's OR, and it looks like it's sourced from a blatant pay-for-play paper mill. Nate • (chatter) 14:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete For all we know this could end up being the "LLM Era", the lead of which could very well end "LLMs were eventually abandoned when it was determined that they and Bitcoin mining were consuming half the energy budget of the planet to produce a great deal of unreliable and even hoax output." A pure distillation of hype and WP:CRYSTAL that needs to be suppressed before it's used by the unwary to bring this monstrosity to life in the internet wilds. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just the LLM era, practically all experts at this stage agree that AI will continue improving and surpassing humans at more and more tasks with no signs of a coming plateau from scaling. This will inadvertently lead to the development of AGI, significant job losses and restructuring of human society.

Nothing about it is really hype, and nothing in the article is predicting anything in the future as fact, its merely documenting what independent and notable sources are anticipating. Mr Vili talk 18:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got my copy of Computer Power and Human Reason when it was brand-new and I was in high school, so I think I have a sufficient history of seeing the various World-Changing Advances In Artificial Intelligence go by the wayside, one by one, to be dubious about this one whose experience by the public is only a year or so old. We are still in the hype/panic stage of LLMs, and there's no telling whether or not they're going to be a dead end like all the rest. For all we know, in a couple of years everyone could be saying "well, THAT was a bad idea" or it could become a festering backwater like blockchain. It's simply too soon to proclaim an era, and an encyclopedia doesn't get points for being the first to jump on the bandwagon. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it has the purpose of documenting the hundreds of media articles that are claiming the start of an AI era, the fact that every major tech company focusing on the development of artificial general intelligence, and we are indisputably heading towards a post-AGI future Mr Vili talk 18:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite can you please let me know which other article there is on wikipedia dedicated to documenting the large-scale ongoing effects of AI. Clearly there is hundreds of media articles, scholarly articles and reports from extremely notable organizations that are clearly pointing describing it as the next industrial revolution and a new era in human history.

The closest is the AI boom, but that is merely covering the technological perspective, but as far as I'm aware there is nothing documenting the ongoing effects and anticipated post-AGI world... Even if a post-AGI world is never actualized, it's large-scale anticipation is worthy of encyclopedic coverage, considering Google, Meta, OpenAI, Microsoft, and many other of the largest tech companies are all narrowing down to develop AGI, with some explicitly making that their mission.

To say that doesn't deserve any encyclopedic coverage seems absurd Mr Vili talk 18:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - a tertiary source. It should encyclopaedically cover subjects as discussed in independent reliable secondary sources, and is not a publisher of original research. This page is not a summary of a subject in independent reliable secondary sources. No anthropologists are writing about the mesonoetic period. That table of periods, for instance, is sourced to an article on Daniweb, an online technology forum. Is it reliable? the writer claims to be a journalist, but I see not sign any editor seriously touched that piece. It is, in any case, a primary source for the information it is supporting. If the writer makes up the period names, it's a primary source used here. And he certainly seems to have made them up. He definitely doesn't reference anything for them. Building an article from a mishmash of this kind of information is fundamentally flawed - and what s true there is true throughout. This is OR, and should be deleted per WP:NOT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. The predictions are unsubstantiated and are sourced from those profiting from them. There are more than enough articles about actual current developments in the field. Swinub (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merge of any relevant content into AI boom may be the course of action which should be taken. This merge was proposed a few months ago, and while these two articles cover slightly different timespans, they have related topics. –Gluonz^{talk contribs} 23:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any content merged would first require verification to ensure that it was cited to a reliable source, and that it accurately represented what the source had to say. Having looked at the sources cited, and what they are supposedly being cited for, I suspect that there would be very little left to merge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge of what would be OR being merged into the AI boom page. A merge would damage that page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not all hyped news pieces need their article, it should be covered either in AI boom or in the History of AI. Artem.G (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Appears to be a WP:MERGE request (WP:SKCRIT 1). (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 05:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad-Hadi Imanieh

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 16:40, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge. In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep no valid for deletion offered, subject passes GNG. Mccapra (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination reason was invalid. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Ameli

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:09, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge. In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no valid reason for deletion has been put forward. In any case the subject clearly meets GNG. Mccapra (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Ghasemi Farzad

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Comment Fixing malformed nomination. I am neutral at this time. --Finngall ^talk 16:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge. In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as no proper rationale for deletion has been suggested, and in any case the subject passes GNG. Mccapra (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Hartnick

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than this struggling to find GNG passing coverage. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easily fails notability guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Nova Direita. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ossanda Liber

AfDs for this article:

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

I know it has only been two months since the last nomination but that ended as no consensus, which was not an endorsement of notability. There has been another nationwide election since then and this candidate is still getting under 0.5%. There are sources about her, yes, but they're mainly discussing her candidacies and are part of a WP:ROUTINE coverage expected in a democracy. Some other parties are mainly based around the founder, such as Vox and Chega, but those parties have hundreds of other office holders and the founders have their own individual notability as office holders and nationally recognisable figures. Apart from being an unsuccessful candidate, what can be said about Liber that isn't about her party? The page used to have information about education and children, which I removed as unsourced per BLP. I also removed the blow-by-blow of setting up a political party, as that's obviously more about the organisation than about her. But the thing is, would we ever need to know personal information about someone this notable? I saw the comment before that Liber is notable as a founder and leader of a political party, but in a democracy it's reasonably easy to set up a party, and extremely easy to be the leader of your own party. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Liber's electoral history: 2021 Lisbon local election (0.36%), 2022 national election (voters in other European countries constituency) (0.08%), 2024 national election (Lisbon constituency) (0.18%), 2024 European election (0.18%). Not sure at which point someone becomes notable the hard way, like Bill Boaks. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all previous commenters: AusLondonder Moondragon21 PamD SportingFlyer BlakeIsHereStudios Prima.Vera.Paula Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page could potentially be merged into Nova Direita as it is considerably larger. 18:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Conservatism, Angola, France, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not keep articles on failed political candidates for a variety of different reasons under WP:NOT, and she's not notable for being the leader of a very small political party either. It's not impossible she'll be notable in the future, but at the moment I think this is an easy delete. SportingFlyer T·C 19:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nova Direita - there isn't enough coverage to justify a separate article, a slightly-longer description of her in the party's article is sufficient. Not impossible this would change in the future. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Nova Direita: That way the page info would be stored in the redirect's history and a portion of the content could be placed in a section in the Nova Direita article. Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 4000

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT. C messier (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: definitely not notable. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as notability cannot be shown. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 21:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 3786

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

The galaxy has only been featured in a small number of databases and large scale surveys which don't provide significant commentary on the object, thus fails WP:NASTCRIT C messier (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as notability cannot be shown. hamster717 ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ * my contribs🌌)} 12:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: definitely not notable. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am unable to find any other reliable sources. ‹hamster717› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌)} 20:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. No deletion rationale provided. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba Abdollahi

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

I first saw this article when I was searching about the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general. I prefer the information of this article be transferred on the article that contains the list of governors in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 13:27, June 10, 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reformatted to add the missing article name by Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each governor is automatically notable, so there is no reason to delete the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed . Keep AlexBobCharles (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I suggest we merge it to the article containing a list of current Iran governors-general if not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you don’t need a deletion nomination to achieve a merge. In any case we have many other articles about Iranian governors, and saying you’d prefer a merge isn’t a deletion rationale. Mccapra (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know. That's why I suggest merge if not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion has been offered, and the subject passes GNG. Mccapra (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Applications of WP:SKCRIT#1 and #3. The nominator has failed to provide an accurate deletion rationale and has also failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. The subject itself passes the general notability guideline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly notable per WP:NPOL. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information Systems Associates FZE

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

Fairly sure this fails the notability guidelines for companies but I'd appreciate a once-over from editors more familiar with aviation software, Sri Lanka or the UAE to make sure this nomination isn't a howler. Its presence on Wikipedia (including list entries and other links, hence I don't favour a redirect) is entirely down to a single-purpose account, almost certainly with a conflict of interest. – Teratix ₵ 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Software, Sri Lanka, and United Arab Emirates. – Teratix ₵ 13:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails the requirements of WP:NCOMPANY, lacks significant coverage in reliable/independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Krejcarek

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

Autobiography of an apparently non-notable retired photography teacher. No in-depth secondary sources, and his awards for photography and teaching do not seem to be significant ones. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very trivial coverage in Gnews, with his name in a list of art exhibits. Sources now used in the article are primary or non-RS. Nothing I can find for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Photography, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- pretty close to the line for WP:PROF based on rank and publisher quality for academic textbooks (which are reviewed less often than research texts) but not enough coverage to pass the bar. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any sources to bring this up to notable. The biographical information is not verified by the link to his faculty listing at Carroll. The "award" is a regional Milwaukee Area Teachers of Art prize for a photograph. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preethi (disambiguation)

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

Per Talk:Preethi#Requested move 2 June 2024 the film is the only topic with this title. The other two entries are WP:TITLEPTMs. As names they should follow MOS:DABNAME, but with only two entries disambiguation can be handled by hatnotes. Polyamorph (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is at least one film and one person with "Preethi" in their name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film is the primary topic and the name is the WP:ONEOTHER topic. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the non-film entries are partial title matches, which do not belong on disambiguation pages. Happy to reconsider if anyone can find evidence that the actresses are referred to mononymously as Preethi. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Names aren't WP:PTMs. It's reasonable for someone to refer to one with the name as simply "Preethi", whether or not they are known mononymously. That being said, the guidance for names in regards to disambiguation pages is at WP:NAMELIST, which is pretty much "use an anthroponomy index unless you're well known". This has been done in this case, with the creation of Preethi (name). -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: hatnote on Preethi now points to the one other article, Preethi (name). No need for dab page. PamD 07:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unless there's no primary topic between the pages, a DAB page with two entries shouldn't exist. I'm not entirely convinced there is a primary topic here (Preethi (name) didn't exist at the time of the RM), but until the absence of a primary topic between these two articles is established, the DAB page should not exist. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Polyamorph:, @Tavix:, @Extraordinary Writ:, @PamD:, @Skarmory:, per my comments below, why would we not redirect the title with history in tact, and why is Preethi (name) separate from Preeti? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Preethi (name) into Preeti

If this page cannot be kept, I would like to propose merging Preethi (name) into Preeti, and redirecting Preethi (disambiguation) to one of those two pages with history in tact. It has been said that hatnotes should redirect to a title that has "(disambiguation)" in it, in the event that such an article is created at that title. Would we be able to relist this AFD in order to converse about these possibilities? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverfront Broadcasting

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of significant, independent coverage of the company. The current sources are either press releases or are covering routine business transactions, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Television Network

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of coverage about the network's activities. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Mandaran

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG as there are no reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this event or mentions the event as Conquest of Mandaran. it relies heavily on Non-WP:RS sources. Based.Kashmiri ^(🗨️) 09:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed all the sources before they were removed and all are poor and fail WP:HISTRS like a source where N.K. Sahu is an editor of a book that was contributed by William Wilson Hunter, WP:RAJ and sources by Nitish K. Sengupta who was an IAS officer in 1957 and served as the Revenue Secretary of the Government of India. No source has a paragraph enough to give depth on the Conquest of Mandaran Page fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concerns that don't raise to the level of HOAX but seriously concerning stuff in regards to notability, NPOV, and wikipuffery that mean this article is not encyclopedic. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the sources (and their very limited descriptions of this battle), I would like to vote to merge this; but where? There is nothing to be said beyond Under Ruknuddin Barbak Shah, Shah Ismail Ghazi sieged and conquered a fort near Gar Mandaran in 1464, everything else seems to be WP:SYNTH. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Network Architecture

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

It doesn't appear to meet WP:N. It's also in such a promotional, unsourced state that it would need TNTing if kept. Boleyn (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon

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

Considering that the first bullet point refers to a page about legal punishment, not extrajudicial, and the second bullet point refers to a page which doesn't even mention Lebanon, I don't think this disambiguation serves any real purpose. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Lebanon. Fram (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a disambiguation / redirect. I'm OK with it being deleted if it's not a page others think is useful? But I think this is the wrong deletion template to use. MWQs (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second page should mention Lebanon, possibly it needs updating or expanding. The more detailed page List of Israeli assassinations includes at least 3 examples in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a topic that probably should be covered somewhere, but there's currently not much here to actually link to. MWQs (talk) 12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your feedback I changed it to be a redirect to the most relevant of the 5 pages on the revised list i made earlier today. I checked that the new target page includes several Extrajudicial killings in Lebanon. MWQs (talk) 10:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a poor redirect to me, equating the title to things done by Israel, while it seems that there may well have been such killing by e.g. Syria or internally during the civil war. I think it is better not to have a page (disambig or redirect) for this at all. Fram (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fram. Plus please do not singlehandedly decide for the WP community what the outcome of a debate should be. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meantime, I undid the improper redirect. The disambig is POV, possibly an ATTACK page, and the redirect worked the same way. For good and bad, after an AfD was started, we need to debate this until a resolution is reached. gidonb (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb, I'm not sure what you are referring to? The notice I followed to get here said: "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed." So if you mean we are not supposed to edit it during the discussion, maybe it's got the wrong notice showing? MWQs (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are certainly OK, even encouraged, change into a redirect or rename not. These are AfD resolutions that we should leave for a community decision once an AfD has started. Hence I restored the version after your additional edits and before the redirect. gidonb (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misinterpreted. MWQs (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't think any other options were on the table? It seems to be an inappropriate use of a disambiguate? And nobody seemed keen to turn it into an article? So a redirect was all that's left?

did my smaller edits help? are there other edits that could be made to turn it onto an acceptable disambiguate?

I don't feel particularly strongly about keeping it. Just it seemed I'd misused the disambiguate concept and I felt obliged to try and fix my error.

If nobody has any good ideas for something to turn it into we should probably just delete it?

MWQs (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note; the same editor has now made Extrajudicial killings in the West Bank. Fram (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some number of pages have {{World topic|prefix=Extrajudicial killings in|noredlinks=yes}} on them, which has resulted in the {{incoming links}} maintenance tag being added to the disambiguation page. Something about this situation feels incorrect. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a disambiguation page. But the real purpose of this page is unclear to me. The Banner talk 23:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Arguments to keep are weak, given that the sources are fairly routine in my view. That said, there is not consensus to delete the article, perhaps due to a lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes — multiple instances of published, significant coverage about the subject in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's all routine press coverage, no sources show that the cancelled series is notable after its cancellation. Not all cancelled series/films with routine press coverage are notable, and if it is, might as well make pages for the 200+ series and films that have been cancelled. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage seems sufficient to have a page (with notable cast, production history, premise verified). If really there's no consensus about that being enough, then redirect to Starz and add a line there with a few of the sources from this article (but I think it's not necessary and personally find it would be a pity). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Team Bangladesh

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

TOO Soon; lacks reliable sources; BoraVoro (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although The Business Standard and The Register are generally reliable as news organizations, both their articles are based entirely on the third source, Group-IB. The notes about sources in WP:GNG say, "Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information." The article effectively has a single source. And it isn't clear that Group-IB has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquin Jansen

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

South African rugby BLP. I found a handful of sentences of coverage here, which I don't see as enough to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai Polo & Equestrian Club

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

Non notable article about an organization/club that doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't talk of WP:NCORP when there is no notability and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Asia. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nom. Doesn't satisfying {WP:GNG]]. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Football at the Micronesian Games. Malinaccier (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yap football team

AfDs for this article:

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

OK, the relevant Afd was in 2011. Let's ask some questions.

Question 1: Notability policies and guidelines have changed since then, haven't they?
Question 2: has this particular Association Football team may have gathered some WP:SIGCOV since 2011?

My answers are to these questions

Answer 1: Yes, they have changed, and are adverse to the retention of this article. this would appear to me strongly supportive of a "delete" outcome here
Answer 2: Nope, not as far as I can see

Despite or possibly because Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP I'm fine with any alternate outcome Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Oceania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the participation in Football at the Micronesian Games is not sufficient for an article on its own; and there is nothing else to base an article on. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral regarding whether to retain this title as a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Football at the Micronesian Games. Everything one could want to know about the team is located there. Very far from notability. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly there's nothing really wrong with this article apart from the fact it's for a very dusty far away area of the football world where the team isn't consistently active and where most news gets posted on Facebook instead in newspapers. I think deleting this makes our encyclopaedia worse as it's correct and reliably sourced, but I can't make a good solid argument to keep this, nor is any coverage from the tournament they participated readily available online which could rebut the #2 argument for deletion. So IAR keep from me, which will be discarded, but still, I object. I am sure the competitions they participated in received at least some coverage somewhere, though, similar to the 2023 futsal tournament which was meant to create interest in the sport. SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Football at the Micronesian Games per above. Possibly a section like "participating teams" could be made on that page, containing a small summary of each team participating? Just a suggestion VojvodaStranih (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football at the Micronesian Games: As a WP:ATD. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 09:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎ as the wrong venue — AfD is for articles only; files go to files for discussion. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Always remember us single.jpg

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

Fan-made album cover, serves no purpose Sricsi (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue - This needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion and not here. Suggest speedy close here. --MuZemike 10:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 11:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WesBank Raceway

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N, or a suitable WP:ATD. It has been in CAT:NN for 12 years now, so hopefully we can decide now one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reading articles at news24 and IOL, I'm able to gather that the race track existed for four years before the land was sold. There's a throwaway line of "so many records were broken here" but nothing specific. I don't see that any notable races happened here, that notable racers racers there. Or any SIGCOV while it was operating. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Townsquare Media. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Talk Network

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:N. Due to the way it is written (and wholly unsourced), even if notable it would need TNTing. I couldn't see a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an umbrella branding for Townsquare Media's centralcasted talk programming distributed to its stations in Michigan. Outside occasional interviews that get national attention, this is an utterly run of the mill programming service for one broadcaster in one state, and it's based in a swing state in the state capital so of course major candidates will be interviewed, which seems to barely provide its N, but definitely not for its own hosts who just pitch the questions for the candidates to swing at. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Townsquare Media: Unable to find any significant coverage showing that WP:NCORP is met. Redirect to the owner as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Townsquare Media and selectively merge. It's reasonable to redirect to the owner as ATD, but we actually would need to have content on the Michigan Talk Network in the article on the owner for the redirect to be reasonable. As such, a selective merge is warranted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2024 French legislative election. Malinaccier (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 dissolution of the National Assembly

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

It could be merged into the article of 2024 French legislative election. Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and France. Cmsth11126a02 (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The title "2024 dissolution of the National Assembly" does not even work. Maybe "2024 dissolution of the French national assembly" or if this is the first, then "Dissolution of the French national assembly". Redirecting this title to the target does not seem right, even though this is not a RM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This definitely has enough coverage right now. I can also expect sustained coverage, as this is the first time this has happened in France since 1997. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Upon further thought, I think it's best if we merge this per others. Topic is definitely notable, but best put up with the 2024 Legislatives. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect The dissolution is just the call for the snap election, absolutely no reason whatsoever to have a separate article when it can be covered in the election's background. Sustained coverage will obviously be about the election, not the dissolution as an independent, unrelated topic. Do not make one-sentence pages like this either. Reywas92^Talk 13:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 French legislative election. The topic is notable (and may well be discussed for years as either a successful gamble or an unsuccessful one), but it is probably best discussed in the article on the election itself. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2024 French legislative election. Moondragon21 (talk 17:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) Redirect to 2024 French legislative election per nom; this should be uncontroversial. This topic should be part of that article; and in fact that article already contains more information than this one-sentence stub. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 French legislative election as the proper page for this event. --Enos733 (talk) 04:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral about the issue. I created the page because as a French citizen, I felt like it was a real subject that should be treated, but then I saw that WP:EN never created separated pages for the few previous dissolutions. So I decided to not intervene on the page anymore until the decision was made. However, note that there are plenty of sources and it could perfectly be a reliable and well sourced article, for example with a section 'background' (which would speak about previous dissolutions, which I think is not mentioned or talked about on 2024 French legislative election and even would be a little outside of the scope of that specific article, in fact. Another section could be about the results, and thus permitting the reader to go to the page of 2024 French legislative election. However, as I'm the writer of the article, I think it's better to stay neutral for me, but those are my insights into the issue.- AgisdeSparte (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is more of a procedural step toward the election as a whole. Borgenland (talk) 11:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There are no separate pages for previous dissolutions of the French National Assembly (it is just referenced in passing on the 1997 and 1962 pages). Foreign dissolutions with their own pages typically have a constitutional crisis involved or an otherwise historically significant ramification (e.g., King–Byng affair, The Dismissal, or the 2023 Ecuadorian muerte cruzada), which is absent from the topic at hand. <RetroCraft314 /> 16:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as it is only the announcement of the legislative election, and deserves a section there rather than a standalone article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve as I believe that the dissolution and the events related to it are notable and major enough (considering the state of affairs in France) to merit their own page. Also why I contributed to this page. Astralium1 (talk) 08:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon T. Bailey

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

Non-notable speaker. Zero in-depth secondary source about him. A few mentions in promotional guest posts or invitations of his events. Tagged since 2015 but has been continously attracting COI/UPE editors. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Florida, New York, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only thing here that qualifies as a claim of notability is the CPAE Speakers Hall of Fame, and doing a newspapers.com search for that Hall, the 34 times I find of it being mentioned are basically all clearly quoting press release materials about a given speaker, or flat out ads. Web search is not finding the sort of results that suggest it should be given more consideration. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Zander

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

ROTM self-help coach who has authored some guest posts or has been mentioned in guest post - nothing in secondary references. Fails WP:GNG. Teltle (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some coverage here [27] and here [28] Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find book reviews, only various talking points when she interviews in magazines. Not enough for notability here in wiki. Sourcing used now in the article is primary or un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I'm not sure why this discussion kept being relisted as there is a clear consensus to Keep this article. A move discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My take: There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters, List of World Series broadcasters, List of NBA Finals broadcasters, List of Wimbledon broadcasters, List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters, List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters. Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination)) SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN. Saying, "it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist...", please provide more and I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to History of the NFL championship broadcasts, per Conyo14, with the footnote material about the various quirks of the broadcasts being moved to the body of the article ahead of the list, and the list being made a lesser section of the article. BD2412 T 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep and move? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per BD2412. My previous rationale still applies, this does not meet the WP:LISTN but can meet the GNG though a rewrite. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 23:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blood purity

AfDs for this article:

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

"Blood purity" does not occur as a term in any of the linked articles except Fictional universe of Harry Potter (the original intention of the page as first written), and Limpieza de sangre: other entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. If rewritten as an article it would require sources, which it currently doesn't have and so fails WP:V. An alternative to deletion may be to redirect to Fictional universe of Harry Potter with a hatnote to other use(s). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, and Disambiguations. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Applying the term "blood purity" to refer to blood quantum laws, half-caste status, etc., is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and it doesn't seem necessary to redirect this as a concept to the Fictional universe of Harry Potter page (where it appears the concept in the HP universe is called "purity of blood"?). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow, this is not a topic space I want to be much involved in. As I understand disambiguation policy, there are two burdens that need to be met. Fist, there need to be at least three valid dab topics (WP:TWODABS), and second, those target articles need to make use of the disambiguated term (WP:DABMENTION). That complicates AFD somewhat, because an article that should deal with a disambiguated topic but doesn't is an editorial issue for the target article rather than strictly a deletion issue for the disambiguation page... at least in my mind. Anyway. I don't think there's any real debate that Limpieza de sangre and Fictional universe of Harry Potter are both relevant target articles for this topic. Looking exclusively at peer reviewed journal content here, because hoo boy I do not want to do general searches on this, I think it's overwhelmingly clear that racial hygiene should also be a valid dab target,[29][30][31][32] although the article at current does not make use of this term. There's also quite a bit in the literature about parallel concepts in Japanese and Korean culture, although I don't honestly even know what the applicable extant article would be for that, if any. There is at least some scholarly use of the term in the context of the blood quantum laws [33][34] although I'll admit that's somewhat less common that its use in the German, Japanese, or Korean context. I didn't look into the Australian stuff. I've searched just about enough of this for one day. Lubal (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. The concept of "blood purity" (or being a "pureblood") is a big deal in the post-COVID-19 antivax community, and it is surprising that this is mentioned nowhere in the encyclopedia. It should be noted somewhere relevant, and added to this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 23:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)*[reply]
Note: see, e.g., France 24, "Vaccine misinformation spawns 'pure blood' movement", stating "In closed social media groups, vaccine skeptics -- who brand themselves as "pure bloods" -- promote violence against doctors administering coronavirus jabs alongside false claims of mass deaths of vaccinated people"; Vice, "Unvaccinated TikTokers Are Calling Themselves 'Purebloods'"; The Edge, "Purebloods: The Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy of the Anti-Vax Movement", stating, "In September 2021, an assemblage of TikTok users anointed themselves 'Purebloods' for their repudiation of the COVID vaccine". BD2412 T 23:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this content to an appropriate article and this disambiguation page. BD2412 T 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This strikes me as a situation where WP:MEDRS would apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are social conventions, not actual biomedical information. WP:MEDRS applies to the latter. BD2412 T 13:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as DICTDEF. An article on "Purebloods" in the anti-vax context would be not only a GNG pass, but strikes me as a deficiency of WP by not having it. That is not what this is. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – So many possible DAB targets have emerged in this discussion that deletion now makes no sense. The suggestions from Lubal and BD2412 for what to include seem well-reasoned. Toadspike [Talk] 09:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the phrase seems to be too ambiguous to redirect to any of the (several dissimilar and notable) topics that the term could describe. The disambiguation page should remain. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICT "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." The term "blood purity" is found in different wordings ("pure blooded" i.e.), essentially meaning the same thing. Whether talking about a race of people, or a breed of animal. Go with whatever usage the source does. We don't need a DAB page to tell us that. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there are multiple valid targets here, and we only need two where one is non-primary to warrant a DAB page. Fictional universe of Harry Potter and Limpieza de sangre on their own are enough to support a DAB. Content on the DAB page past that is another question, but it's not one for AFD. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a disambiguation page. It may need a bit of revision to adhere to modern standards of dab pages, but that does not change the fact that it is a dab page. And it's a valid dab, since it could very easily point to either of Limpieza de sangre or Fictional universe of Harry Potter without either being an obvious WP:PTOPIC. As such, we should keep this page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid disambiguation page and serves a good purpose. Malinaccier (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Belgium–Russia relations. Malinaccier (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Belgium, Moscow

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

Fails WP:ORG. Russian version of this article also only has 1 source. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and Russia. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium–Russia relations, where the embassy is mentioned, as an ATD. gidonb (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Due to lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian article does not establish notability, it is an opinion piece by Hansford and a WP:PRIMARY source. LibStar (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No new comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Microlecture

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

A hat-rack article with no clear topic. Primarily a list of citations, rather than actual content. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is written pretty badly but the large number of sources are in fact good. There are a whole lot of studies but it seems like there would almost definitely be at least 3 in there specifically mentioning microlectures which are also reliable and secondary.

e.g.

1. https://statenews.com/article/2009/03/microlectures_turn_lessons_into_interactive_snippets

2. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2010/11/10/teaching-in-one-minute-snippets.aspx

3. (off google not the thing, accepts submissions from non-journalists) https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/online-education/online-course-delivery-and-instruction/microlectures-101-what-why-how/

4. (from the thing) short mention in fox news

So the article has a clear topic, at least 2 reliable secondary sources, and a number of journal articles (plus many, many unreliable blogs). I think there's not really a good case to delete here, the article is just bad and basically needs to be started from scratch without all the blogs. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said it might be a fad and not be the sustained coverage policy, but I'd say keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a different word for "lectures on TikTok"? I would not be too surprised if there is more coverage of the general concept under a different name.
I'm not entirely convinced yet, but the links at [35] (which links to your link 3) suggest this might be "keep but re-write". Walsh90210 (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Broadcasting

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

Subject lacks the needed sources to meet the WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Montana. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that subject lacks needed secondary sources. Also appears to fall firmly under Wikipedia:ROTM. Manyyassin (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no coverage in reliable sources found. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Werner

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

I nominated this for AfD because an IP prodded it and I felt like it might be controversial. Not sure if he meets the WP:GNG but there are a decent amount of sources. (Don’t seem reliable though, citehighlighter is highlighting a lot of them orange and red) 48JCL TALK 02:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be a well-written résumé, but doesn't impress me as anything else. It has a self-aggrandizement tone throughout. The large section "Early life and education" is irrelevant to notability. In a nutshell, this individual has been a successful career business man. But that usually means getting a good education and making the right connections to rise to the top. However, I don't find where he meets WP:ANYBIO, and he would not match any other criteria. — Maile (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Also, I am suspicious that this may be a case of WP:AUTO (e.g. the headshot picture is uploaded by johnkellogwerner). A significant number of the sources are problematic, with some being press releases, personal blogs, local pieces, and the subject's alumni magazine (the info from which likely comes from the subject himself). Manyyassin (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PW van Vuuren

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there is this I'm struggling to find anything else GNG worthy. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stairs Mhlongo

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coert Cronjé

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Proposal to merge Preethi (name) into Preeti