Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 10

< March 09	March 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Langley, British Columbia (city)

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

List of largely non-notable mayors of a city of 30,000 people. Lacking secondary sources, also particularly lacking non-local sources per WP:AUD. Fails WP:NLIST AusLondonder (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Canada. AusLondonder (talk) 23:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Langley, British Columbia (city). Does not warrant its own article. YordleSquire (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per YordleSquire. The city's too small to rate a separate list. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure it's necessary to merge. On the one hand I hate to lose the information, on the other hand, the article appears cited to a single source so is simply proxying for it. Chetsford (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a list of almost entirely non-notable people — the only two who actually have Wikipedia articles both have them for having gone on to serve in the provincial legislature later in their careers, not for having been mayors of Langley per se — and it's referenced principally to the city's self-published list of its own former mayors rather than independent third-party sourcing. Merging into the city's article would also be acceptable, but it doesn't meet the standards necessary to qualify as a standalone list. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. only primary sources used, and almost all mayors on the list do not meet WP notability threshold to believe that someday they will have articles created in their names. Lokotim (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last Empire-War Z

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

Unable to find significant coverage, thereby failing WP:GNG. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage whatsoever, apart from download links and databases. I've always found the gap between popularity and coverage in mobile games to be bizzare though. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article cites no sources because there is no coverage. YordleSquire (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have not been able to find any significant coverage of this topic. It therefore fails WP:GNG. Knox490 (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations. Owen× ☎ 00:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siuuu

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

Fails WP:GNG, not independently notable and can be just a section under Cristiano Ronaldo. Also, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the input and thoughts, would you care to add the section? Isaac Tam Tsz Hang (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cristiano Ronaldo seems fine, I don't find much coverage about this salute, could easily be merged into the main Ronaldo article. Fine piece of trivia, but I don't think it's notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's definitely not encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations – mentioned there, but let's start the topic in its section. I would also prefer keeping the article since it is the subject of multiple reliable sources and given that the player's article is unusually long. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above. Giant Snowman 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations – Aww this would be a funny article. But for now it's essentially a dictionary entry. TLA^tlak 03:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations. Can be expanded a bit. No need to SPINOFF. gidonb (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Seems obvious to me. Anwegmann (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cristiano Ronaldo#Goal celebrations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widely known as the most popular and iconic football celebration ever. I dont think merging is a good idea as the article is already tagged for being too long --FMSky (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenville County Republican Party

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Coverage is from local media, not helpful in establishing notability per WP:AUD. AusLondonder (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, Politics, and South Carolina. AusLondonder (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has turned into a classic trainwreck, which would make consensus on any given article more or less impossible to determine here. No prejudice to individual renomination of specific articles, but it seems they will need to be considered separately. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the Rest Is Drag

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

Insufficient grounds for a standalone article; I attempted to redirect this article, but was reverted. Recommend forced redirect or deletion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Additionally, recommend the same be applied to the following articles as well.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by page creator: I am in the process of expanding this article. Please keep this in mind before/when voting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For "And the Rest Is Drag", the article currently shows coverage from The Guardian and The A.V. Club, and a quick search pulls up coverage from IndieWire and Entertainment Weekly. The previous episode, "Hello, Kitty Girls!", has coverage in similar sources (see, for instance, Vulture). If certain episodes have more specific concerns, a more targeted nomination should address them, but for now, these episodes seem to meet WP:N. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add to my previous comment: The standard for meeting notability should be WP:GNG, not WP:NTV (an essay which was not adopted as an SNG several years ago). RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per analysis by RunningTiger123: The Guardian, A.V. Club and EW are all good sources (for starters), and WP:N has been met. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, my comment refers to "And the Rest Is Drag". I have not examined any of the other nominations. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri Shouldn't be a problem. I think you'll find there's a similar amount of coverage for those episodes, if not more. Also, the article selected for me to develop ("And the Rest Is Drag") is likely to be the shortest of the season 7 entries. Being the episode with the final challenge, "And the Rest Is Drag" has the fewest contestants, plus there was no mini-challenge and no guest judges. In other words, there's likely more to say about the season's earlier episodes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7). The sole existance of just reviews is not the basis for the notability/existance of an episode article, as has been discussed at WikiProject Television many times. -- Alex_21_TALK 20:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried redirecting all of these articles to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 7), but they were all reverted. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject discussions do not supersede community-wide policies and guidelines (~~WP:OWN,~~ WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). If those discussions cite relevant policies and guidelines, it's more helpful to share those here so they can be weighed within this discussion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is OWN relevant here? Quite the random policy to just "quote". -- Alex_21_TALK 07:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that multiple editors, or a WikiProject, attempting to force articles to meet a certain standard of their own is in line with multiple-editor ownership (a few sample statements to watch at OWN point to this), but LOCALCONSENSUS makes the point more clearly so I've struck OWN from my comment. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per RunningTiger123. The episode has received in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Even if you completely ignore the lesser publications like Channel Guide Magazine, City Magazine, Gambit Magazine, IndieWire, and Vada Magazine, you still have thorough reviews by major outlets like The A.V. Club, Entertainment Weekly, The Guardian, and Vulture. The vast majority of television episodes do not receive this much coverage. I am not finished expanding this entry, but I think I've demonstrated that an episode is much more than the ten bullet points included in the season 7 summary table. I've been disappointed and frustrated by the few editors who seem to enjoy placing as many obstacles in my path as possible, instead of collaborating or even assuming good faith. I cannot be expected to flesh out all of these entries to Good article quality by the AfD deadline, but I hope other editors will agree that my work on "And the Rest Is Drag" shows there's no need to mass delete or redirect these valid articles. We need more entries about LGBT culture and history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep And the Rest Is Drag; merge rest per Alex 21. It's very rare for competition-style series to warrant individual episode articles as they generally can never meet WP:GNG nor WP:NTVEP. And the Rest Is Drag is somewhat close, but still, I think it'd probably be better suited merged to the season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as I haven't decided what my ultimate thought is, but the sources as brought up here are not convincing me. Channel Guide Magazine, The Guardian, Entertainment Weekly and Indiewire are recaps and thus do not contribute toward notability per WP:NEPISODE. Looking at them directly too, none offer anything significant in terms of critical commentary, and the way are used in the article isn't really significant critical commentary either; sparse qualitative assessment in an article that is paragraphs of plot summary is not non-trivial coverage, especially if all that can be wrung out of it for reception is a sentence and a half. City, Gambit, and Vada are also largely recaps, and I'm not sure if they meet WP:RS. So, that leaves only AV Club, which is a robust review that offers significant commentary. ~Cheers, Ten TonParasol 23:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even looking at WP:GNG, I remain not convinced since the sources that that article is slowly accumulating is recaps and recaps and more recaps with very little critical commentary or anything in the way of reviews in a non-trivial manner. Sources that provide plot summary and little else in the way of other commentary do not satisfy. It feels like we're inching toward WP:REFBOMBING with sources that simply summarize the plot rather than establishing meaningful coverage of the work. Even if enough sources eventually turn up, it isn't serving the article to prop it up with this way, and the recaps that don't provide meaningful commentary should be removed. ~Cheers, Ten TonParasol 00:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RunningTiger123's commentary and the creator improving the articles per WP:HEY. AV and the Guardian are independent and show notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bgsu98, you can't just create a list of articles, this bundled nomination is not formatted correctly. Please review the instructions at WP:AFD and correct this nomination. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, this should be fixed now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Bgsu98. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge. On "And the Rest Is Drag": plenty of full-length independent coverage in respected publications such as The Guardian, Vulture and The A.V. Club,. IndieWire and Entertainment Weekly are largely recaps but contain critical commentary. The amount of critical commentary could not be contained within the season article. The genre of the show would be an indicator before research that notability is unlikely, but after research it turns out that it does meet GNG. On the other articles: I see no reason they would not also be notable given the episode-by-episode reviews by the same publications. — Bilorv (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the time it may not have been listed correctly per Liz's note
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at a random article and while it looked pretty big with a lot of detail, it really isn't. The episode detail is way too long and much more than the MOS:TV allows for. Most of the text in the production section was part of a bio of two people there and was completely unrelated to the actual episode. Gonnym (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a bit of context about how Andersen and Cayne have been involved with the series was relevant, but no problem with your trim. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and Merge summary of the episode into RuPaul's Drag Race. desmay (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator doesn't even offer a source assessment... They merely recommended a "forced redirect or deletion" because I reverted their redirect. Also, merging into the series entry is not plausible; I agree with User:Bilorv, who has said even a merge to the season entry would be difficult. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per commentary from Bilorv and RunningTiger123. Many articles such as "And the Rest Is Drag" showcase many independent coverages and notability from various publications. Also, merging all the information into a standalone article would be very lengthy. However, I would say it's best when creating an episode article should be in the draftspace, until the creator decides it's ready for the mainspace. — JuanGLP (talk/contribs) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sylhet Protidin

AfDs for this article:

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

Small regional newspaper in Bangladesh with no evidence of notability either in the article or the sources used. Google search found nothing to suggest it would pass WP:NORG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. If you type in "major" or "notable", be prepared to show evidence therefor. Also, having one semi-notable reporter does not make the newspaper notable. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Calling this short-lived regional daily a "major" newspaper is an exaggeration. According to a press release about a new newspaper by the same editor, Sylhet Protidin began publication in 2006 and ceased some time between 2007 and 2008.[1] I can't find any instance of it receiving an award or being cited by a reliable source. Does not meet WP:NNEWSPAPER or WP:NMEDIA. No good redirect target, but perhaps the alleged torture of the editor could be worked into Rapid Action Battalion. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging as concerned parties those participants in the previous discussion who have edited in the past year: @JRA, Nyttend, and Work permit: --Worldbruce (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have you searched in Bengali or just in English? If Reporters without Borders think a publication important enough to write an article about it, and if the UNHCR think it important enough to reproduce that article, there will be further reliable sources in its own language, regardless of what you find in English. Moreover, print serials characteristically get print coverage and subscription-only database coverage (e.g. Ulrichsweb), so Google will miss heaps of sources. Nyttend (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nyttend: Yes, I searched in Bengali as well as English. The press release I linked to above is in Bengali. There is nothing about the paper in Ulrichsweb. Reporters without Borders (RSF) didn't write an article about Sylhet Protidin, but about the alleged torture of Ahmed Noor. All the article says about the paper is that Ahmed Noor was its editor, and it printed a story by human rights organization Odhikar. RSF is an advocacy organization that defends all journalists, not just those who work for outlets that are important or notable. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is unconvincing unless sources can be shown to exist. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), or WP:NMEDIA. While it is sad concerning the torture of journalist Noor Ahmed, the two sources are concerning this individual (notability is not inherited) and not the subject, so currently mistitled. Once notability has been challenged, and a Search for additional sources performed (D), the burden shifts. If successful this is referred to as a HEY. Also, this is currently a BLP related article and the sourcing criteria is more stringent. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action Cut Entertainment

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Simple mentions do not add up to WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources (the article's sources are just mentions). Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:NCORP. popodameron ⁠talk 21:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
not delete this article page 103.129.215.67 (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My own BEFORE finds nothing to redeem it. Its productions may be WP:N but WP:NOTINHERITED, etc. Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 20:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Gabriel

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, an actress's notability doesn't hinge on just listing acting roles per se, it hinges on the extent to which the article can or can't be referenced to media coverage about her and her performances: articles about her, reviews of her films or TV shows which single her performance out for dedicated attention, properly sourced evidence that she won or was nominated for a major acting award, and on and so forth.
But the sole footnote here is a short blurb which glancingly namechecks Andrea Gabriel's existence without being about Andrea Gabriel in any non-trivial sense, which isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only source she's got.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be the subject of a lot more coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find coverage in RS, this is typical [2], simple photo essay with a few words on her new role. We'd need extensive coverage, this just isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find anything in industry publications (Variety, Deadline Hollywood) announcing new and additional roles except for one extremely-brief TV guide article for the Gossip Girl role [3]. While it is clear she has a robust television resume, there is simply not enough coverage at this time. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 2:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete: There are more to notability as Wikipedia is based in sources cited in articles. I can't find SIGCOV or any award & nom. for her achievements in the film industry. I wonder how the subject had portrayed roles in TV shows yet not even two sources had cited her (in exception even interviews) Otuọcha (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snowy weather. ✗plicit 14:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Flare Triggers Radio Blackout Over Australia

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTNEWS, even written like a news article. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Astronomy, and Australia. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The notice you're referring to didn't have any mention of a restriction on removing the notice. Hence, it was removed.I apologize. I will consider this in the future Thank you. Syed Shaveer (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's actually okay to remove proposed deletion notices! See WP:DEPROD for the policy. The flip side, of course, is that if the proposer doesn't think the issues haven't been addressed, the article will often be taken to articles for deletion for a more thorough discussion, as in this case. ~ A412 ^talk! 23:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are about 2,000 M-class solar flares like this one per 11-year solar cycle (see NOAA/SWPC scales). Unless WP:NSUSTAINED is satisfied (it is not in this case), an event like this should not get a dedicated article. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 ^talk_contribs 22:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in this case The topic has significant coverage as seen here. Just forget NSUSTAINED with Indian sources and even Newsweek talking about it. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of random inconsequential solar flares seems to get significant coverage, but I am seeing very little about the February 6, 2024 event that this article is focusing on. For example, the Newsweek article I believe you are referring to is covering an X1.9-class flare that occurred on February 22. Furthermore, in this Wikipedia article, only refs 1, 2, 5, and 9 are actually about the February 6 event. The rest are about other, unrelated flares. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 ^talk_contribs 19:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original PROD was on the money: WP:NOTNEWS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – NOTNEWS violations (news style title and content is guaranteed deletion). Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, title of article already reads like a news article instead of an encyclopaedia entry. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS, could just be a brief sentence in Solar cycle 25 instead of an entire article about a non-notable solar flare. Sadustu Tau (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the page if it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Syed Shaveer (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. desmay (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic at all and reads like a news report. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insignificant news coverage (see WP:NOTNEWS). HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 08:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after researching, can't find anything that suggests notability --Devoke water 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia May

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

Journeywoman actress with insufficient credits at this time to satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starring or being any film crew of any Asylum mockbuster does not make anybody notable, it's a sign where your career is heading to. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely nothing of notability in this article beyond a single film role in 2009 InDimensional (talk) 14:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no coverage of this subject in any major publication. desmay (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under Kos

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

Repeatedly recreated, and already sent to draftspace twice. Search results show nothing about this street, and I couldn't verify if it even exists (or if it's some kind of hoax). CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a (somewhat amusing) literal translation, it looks like the street is called Pod Kosom. It's not immediately obvious if the translation is even correct, as the etymology isn't listed. A google search finds nothing of particular significance. The street was mentioned in a single recent Slobodna Dalmacija article apparently, based on the eponymous tag (in Croatian). If the city district of Meje, Split had an article, this could be redirected there perhaps. Most of the present article content is actually just about Marjan, Split. --Joy (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Transportation, and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a normal street on Marjan, fails GNG, doesn't deserve its own article. Note a BEFORE search should be for Pod kosom as noted above. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the article is copied from Marjan, Split. — Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines without any available sources. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Consider salting if recreation is repeated again. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full Moon Hotel

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

There is no such hotel in Azerbaijan, it was only planned to be built. Currently, there is the Deniz Mall shopping center in its place. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Travel and tourism, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Planned and unbuilt hotels can be notable. Haven't performed a source search, just scanned the article and other wikis and it looks like it could pass GNG. Possibly oddly the Armenian article is the best sourced... SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little real information in the article, no coverage online and no real sources in the article. InDimensional (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I followed what SportingFlyer said he did, and came to the opposite conclusion. This is a nonexistant building.James.folsom (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Lakki Marwat operation

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

Hardly an event, possible merge but doesn't seem enough here for a stand alone article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Pakistan. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many other pages are about just an event. There are some RS about this one.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Only contemporary news coverage, no sources that provide sustained coverage or demonstrate notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I fail to understand why this can be called an isolated event. We all know, this event is part of Global war on terrorism which has been going on for decades and decades now. There is ABSOLUTELY sustained coverage almost every day in all the Pakistani newspapers about the Pakistan Armed Forces's ongoing campaign against terrorism in Pakistan, specifically against this above terrorist group called Pakistani Taliban, also called Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan. This '2023 Lakki Marwat operation' was, no doubt, part of that ONGOING WAR ON TERRORISM!!!

Also, this article already has many references from major newspapers of Pakistan and India and a book reference...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nobody has said this is an isolated event, or that the broader campaign is not notable, just that this specific operation has not received lasting coverage. Do you have coverage demonstrating otherwise? Also, the book is from 2014, so can't possibly establish the notability of a 2023 event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 book reference was cited correctly NOT to talk about this operation in 2023 in particular, but is already given in the article under the title of 'Background' to this 2023 operation and connects it to the ongoing campaign to "combat terrorism in the region, which had been plagued by frequent attacks"...Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not WP:SUSTAINED. The coverage here is all from the time of the event. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, no evidence of lasting notability. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Uncommitted_(voting_option)#2024:_Michigan,_Minnesota,_and_Washington where the topic is already covered, without prejudice against changing the target if consensus is reached on the target's Talk page. Super Tuesday has come and gone, and we haven't really gained much in terms of evidence of notability. There is broad consensus here that the page should not be kept as a standalone article, but views are split as to the best redirect- or merge target. I don't see any convincing argument as to why a redirect should be done over a delete; there's nothing in the page history that necessitates erasure. Since the final relist, there seems to be a consensus for this redirect, so I see little value in another relisting. Owen× ☎ 21:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommitted campaign

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

All primary sources and no evidence of WP:Sustained coverage. Can be sufficiently covered at 2024 Michigan Democratic presidential primary and Uncommitted (voting option). (Which, full disclosure, I created.) I am opposed to a redirect because the title is very vague. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I agree a redirect of this specific title is vague and could conceivably point to a number of targets (especially after the 2024 presidential election). I do not think the sourcing about individuals who decide to vote for uncommitted delegates in the Democratic primaries refer to a an organization, which is implied by the word "campaign". --Enos733 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements where this most appropriately belong. I also presume that some material will also be added to 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, Uncommitted (voting option) and other associated pages. --Enos733 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the entry some Democrat voters are voting “uncommitted” because they doubt Biden’s ability/competence to fulfil the role and to defeat Trump, thus merging it into an entry on the Israel/Palestine Conflict protest vote is not wholly accurate. Eight Whales (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the title includes the word "campaign," so there is some coordination and shared objectives. Now, I agree we cannot just say or even suggest that everyone who voted uncommitted in 2024 saw their vote as a protest vote about the Israel-Hamas war. - Enos733 (talk) 06:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect. Vague title, duplication of Uncommitted (voting option) #Michigan, 2024, questionable notability, and not even the most common name for this campaign. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 19:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content of this article with Uncommitted (voting option) and Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements, but delete this article without leaving a redirect. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recieved significant coverage in many sources (dozens of media organizations) independent of the campaigners. The 2024 campaign is distinct from the general option to not vote for any candidates. Issues of content and article title should be solved with normal editing, not deletion. Furthermore, the objection about sustained coverage is hard to understand given that this campaign has been getting national media attention for at least a month now. (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article’s title isn’t clearly for the 2024 campaign. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if you disagree with the article title the correct venue is requested moves, not AfD. The article's intended topic is clear from its content. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Uncommitted (voting option), does not need separate article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 21:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until super tuesday to see if this may actually be a big deal. Lukt64 (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems almost certain that this AFD won't be closed by then so I have no problem with this. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping in out of curiosity, but I agree with this - next few days will be telling. Carlp941 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quickly. Not notable. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree all of the sources are PRIMARY, but I do agree there's not sustained coverage for this. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 15:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Super tuesday made this a big deal, they have a lot of votes. Lukt64 (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements which is similar in ways to this article, has recently been created. I support merging this article into that one. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements. SocDoneLeft (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:SPAM. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. At worse, this is Astroturfing via Russian propaganda, and this is the hill that I'm dying on. Bearian (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at the very least, include credible sources with that hill :D User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Movements in general seems disorganized and varied.

Most part of this is Israel-Hamas war protest vote movements, but depending on the state, some folks are also protesting Armenian atrocities, or simply protesting having Biden on the ticket. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should also redirect. These campaigns all have vague and statewide names that don't necessarily agree on exactly how far to protest i.e. dont support in primary but vote in general. or abstain from voting for biden. even a minority of these campaigners are trying to argue to vote for trump to deprive votes from biden.

Did not know if Uncommitted campaign was the correct name for this phenonomena when I first made the Israel-Hamas war protest vote movements article, but I think we should make a page redirecting from Uncommitted Movement to Israel-Hamas war protest vote. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.. also should disclose, i wrote most of the Israel-Hamas war protest vote article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As has been said, there are at least three existing articles that extensively cover this topic and the title of the page is vague and unhelpful. AveryTheComrade (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those arguing for a Keep, a Delete or Merge. Now that Super Tuesday has passed, have opinions changed in any direction?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uncommitted (voting option) and Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements as necessary.

this article has had no useful updates and there is no info that there is some organized national uncommitted campaign User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uncommitted (voting option), as this option did not magically originate out of nothing this year and won't disappear after, and we look down on articles dealing with overly recent detail. Nate • (chatter) 22:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Uncommitted (voting option), per Sawerchessread and MrSchimpf. Sal2100 (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (1st choice): There is already Uncommitted (voting option) and Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements or Merge (2nd choice): As an ATD, considering "overlap", to one of the two above. A Redirect would be optional. -- Otr500 (talk) 07:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge per previous notes. As mentioned, Israel–Hamas war protest vote movements already outlines the topic as necessary, while this article doesn't add anything substantial. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shervon Jack

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played international football and has significant GNG coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo online (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those sources? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I have reservations about national team caps not meeting notability requirements for nationals of countries with almost zero available or trustworthy media coverage. I would also like to see the sources "Jimbo online" loosely referenced above. Anwegmann (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom and Justice Party (Bolivia)

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

Has been unsourced for nearly two decades. No evidence of notability per WP:NORG. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Bolivia. AusLondonder (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support and we shouldn't stop here. There are several articles about political parties that should be deleted for the same reason. Charles Essie (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We really have no need of more research-free nominations and deletion rationales. Instead, we need people to do the research before coming to AFD. That's what the unsourced article drive is about: looking for sources. You show no evidence of looking for sources in this rationale. That hasn't helped the encyclopaedia one iota. Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: Disappointing you characterise my nomination in this way when as you say below no sources exist. Having crappy one paragraph articles about micro-parties that haven't been updated in 22 years is not my definition of helping the encyclopedia. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Essie: Agreed, I'm working on weeding out some of these awful articles about clearly non-notable political parties (most of which haven't been updated in at least twenty years). Unfortunately many were created with zero sources by editors who believe all political parties are inherently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the same handbook where I found Social Liberal and Democratic Party (AfD discussion) documented in depth. It doesn't have this party, by either English or Spanish names. Looking for anything else, after eliminating the Egyptian party of the same name (in Spanish as well), turns up pretty much nothing. ISBN 9781107145948 gives this a total of two words: "unsuccessful (flop)". Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 5 March 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!} 19:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3% of the vote and zero candidates two decades ago, isn't notable. The sources used are trivial coverage. I don't find anything further we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm persuaded by those editors advocating Deletion that the sources providing SIGCOV just aren't there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Papenbrook

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

I believe that this person does not meet WP:A7, but my speedy deletion tag was contested. Minor voice acting roles do not meet WP:ENT. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Anime and manga. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 20:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I usually don't like to vote keep off of an SNG but I think there is a very strong case this person meets WP:NACTOR with their significant roles in Power Rangers, Heat Guy J, Last Exile, Mezzo Forte, The Happy Cricket, Tenchi in Tokyo, and more. Link20XX (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite being in a lot of productions under several names, there's basically no reliable sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Link20XX:. His son Bryce Papenbrook also has a page on this website. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would argue that a page for a notable son isn't a reason for a page about a less-notable father. Bryce Papenbrook isn't at issue here whatsoever. Also, I don't think I'd consider a lot of his roles significant? For example, his Power Rangers character was only a major plot of the story for only a handful of episodes. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 03:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Needs some reliable secondary coverage apart from an obituary and a database entry. --Mika1h (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added as much obituary references as I could find. --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This person probably meets WP:NACTOR as I noted above, which is enough for them to qualify for an article. Link20XX (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, that's your reading of the guideline. I think there should be at least some significant coverage about the subject, it can't be just a list sourced by a database. --Mika1h (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NOTDIR / WP:NOTDATA. I'm a little surprised there isn't more coverage about this actor, given the notability of the works he's appeared. But I'm seeing a lot of small parts and uncredited work. I care about crediting artists, but we can't do that if there are no reliable secondary sources that have decided to cover it. This is an encyclopedia based on what reliable sources have said about a topic, not a copy-and-paste of a movie database. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm surprised too. Every other editor should've found more coverage by now including other obituaries like the ones that an editor claimed wasn't good enough. The only other known source is the interview with his son Bryce. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, or any form of notability as determined by Wikipedia sourcing policies and guidelines. The only sourcing is through data bases and the "External links" sections. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article joins many others, an absolute sourcing nightmare. Names of living people abound and many times not sourced. Not finding anything substantial I went through some links:

Heat Guy J J, (Heat Guy J#Special Services)- leads to large amounts of unsourced material with two links, "Voiced by: Takayuki Sugō (Japanese); Bob Papenbrook (English): Lots of unsourced content that circles back here. That article has one source Funimation Adds Heat Guy J from Esca's Kazuki Akane (Updated) with no mention of the subject.
Maetel Legend that boldly has no sources "except" through the "External links" section. There is no mention in the article "Cast" section of the subject.
Brigadoon: Marin & Melan: "Tenement house" subsection, Tadashi Tokita (unsourced), subject links back to this article.

I went through several with the same results. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NCIS: Los Angeles characters#Dominic Vail. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Jamal Craig

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. ~~Efforts to redirect this have failed.~~ Chris Troutman (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I understand CT's POV on why the merge wouldn't work per how we handle actor v. their characters, but I think a redirect to List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters#Dominic Vail makes sense. It can be protected if necessary but I'd hope the subject makes the effort to understand community consensus and why it (may, pending consensus) be the best way to handle it vs. outright deletion, which has happened once via PROD. Star Mississippi 19:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the merge discussion that was started. I'm not sure where "efforts... have failed" came from, since there have been no previous (unsuccessful) efforts to redirect. Primefac (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake; I struck my comment above. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Primefac (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 21:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyyar Polytechnic College

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

Cannot find anything of note online about the College. Appears to be one of a large number of colleges in the area with no particular distinguishing features Newhaven lad (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no source at all on the page. Simple search does not bring up reliable sources that can be used to even contemplate to Draftify this page. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 18:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhang Polytechnic Institute, Jhang Sadar

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

Can't find anything notable online. Can't find out the size of the College. No basis on which to regard it as a major educational establishment in Jhang District. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Pakistan, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourcing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced for 10 years. Fails WP:ORG. Not a degree awarding institution like a university. LibStar (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Copa Libertadores#Media coverage as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Copa Libertadores broadcasters

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE. In addition, the entries are not discussed as a group in secondary sources, so WP:LISTN is also not met. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and South America. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for standalone lists. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ohnoitsjamie. Lorstaking (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copa Libertadores#Media Coverage – Same as decided for Copa Sudamericana. Svartner (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ohnoitsjamie. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copa Libertadores#Media coverage per similar decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Copa Sudamericana broadcasters. Giant Snowman 22:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Copa Libertadores#Media coverage as a valid WP:ATD used for similar other articles too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Owen× ☎ 18:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Chris Paul

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

WP:NOTSTATS applies here, this information is more appropriate for other places to list. Let'srun (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Basketball, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; once you toss aside the stats, the rest of this belongs in Chris Paul. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I see only stats and no content. Lorstaking (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The important facts should already be in the main Chris Paul article. I'd be in favor of deleting everything in Category:Career achievements of basketball players. These articles are difficult to maintain over time, and sourcing/updating the content is more trouble than it is worth. Some of these stats are just silly and arbitrary ("Only player in NBA history with 6,000 assists through his first 9 seasons and not reach the Conference Finals in that span"). Zagalejo (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything important and encyclopedic can be added/should already be in main Chris Paul article. This is a clear WP:NOTSTATS violation, that doesn't meet WP:NLIST, as it doesn't have enough encyclopedic content for a separate list article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade. I personally enjoy going through these career achievement lists, assuming they are up-to-date and sourced. In the case of Chris Paul, I don't think he has a achieved enough to warrant his own page. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, no editors arguing for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Express

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

~~Only found passing mentions in sources talking about Time Air. No significant coverage found when searching for the company. Article has been unsourced since December 2009.~~ Retracting my nomination. Sources have been tracked down, thanks to Sunnya343. Many thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 18:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and Aviation. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 18:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found sources in the ProQuest database by searching "Ontario Express" "Canadian Airlines". Here are some examples: [4], [5], [6]. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm unable to access these, unfortunately. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 23:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the links if that helps. [1] is a Toronto Star article about the airline ending flights to Hamilton, [2] is a piece in The Globe and Mail about them buying new aircraft, and [3] is an Ottawa Citizen article about the airline beginning operations. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you should have access to ProQuest through the Wikipedia Library if you meet these requirements. Sunnya343 (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay! I didn't even realize the Wikipedia Library was a thing - I'll get that set up! Once I can get those sources in, I'll retract my nomination. Thank you so much! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 21:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordy Polanco

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - bro passes WP:GNG due to being an international football player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) 12:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says nothing about whether someone is an international player or not Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 2A00:23C7:E915:1201:490A:FDC7:22A5:C35D (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Playing international matches is irrelevant in this discussion. Let'srun (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. At first blush, it would appear that views are evenly split. Closer inspection reveals that the Delete views are anchored in guidelines, while the Keep ones are of the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:NEXIST type, without providing any sources. We all recognize the impact of WP:BIAS when it comes to non-Western topics, and are willing to lower the notability threshold accordingly. But we can't lower this threshold to zero. This deletion is without prejudice against an early REFUND if even a single SIGCOV source is found. Owen× ☎ 18:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

321 Medium Regiment (India)

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

Reviewed under NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. I'm normally pretty lenient on military unit articles because they tend to be very enclyclopedic but IMO this one is pretty far out there. Content is basically just "it exists" plus a note of participation sourced to a Twitter/X page. Other than the Twitter/X page one is just a government gazette to support a "mentioned in a dispatch" statement and a stamp page to support a gun type and founding date sentence. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. The page is self opinionated. It does not draw any parallels from the reliable sources, forget even having any on the page. There is no background or history about the Regiment. Can't rely on Twitter accounts. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent any reliable sources (a check on English Google Books had zero hits) and not even anything reliable on the web. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think Google Books is a good place to check notability of an Indian military unit? RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have generally considered major units to be notable. Probably because they are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the person who has created the article, my views are that - The concerns from North8000 are valid. Data regarding military units are sometimes very difficult to come by. A google search regarding this unit will come up with nothing, except for the Wikipedia page. Once more data comes into the public domain, the article can be expanded. Akk7a (talk) 04:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I’m not convinced that more exhaustive searches wouldn’t demonstrate notability. For example, there are a lot of regional/local newspapers in India and a lot of them aren’t indexed or even on the web.

That said, the article is rather stubby compared to other “Regiments” (battalions) of the Indian Artillery.

But I think the best course of action would be to let it sit for months to years and see if it gets expanded.

I strongly suspect this is a case of non-searchable SIGCOV being assumed not to exist i.e. WP:BIAS. Indian Army units don’t have the same Web footprint as American or British ones. Just how it is.

10:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as keep since sources are present, but require addition onto the article and further expansion. No consensus for delete. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Dvořáková

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

Despite being a member of Czech Republic women's handball team as well as the winner of 2018 Czech Women's Handball First Division, this person has not received enough sources to meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Google searches come up with silly, random namesakes. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep denik has some articles about her. Especially this article and also idnes with this interview. If you google <<"Veronika Dvořáková" Hazena>> there are more sources. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try translate the articles and re-word myself if this nomination was kept. However, since I knew nothing of handball-related subjects the moment, it's admitted difficult. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the concern is absence of sources, and this is dealt with in the comments here by Malo95, so I see no enduring rationale for deletion. Article needs improvement, not deletion. C 679 07:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Issues related to WP:UNDUE can be fixed editorially. Owen× ☎ 18:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eduin Quero

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. Joeykai (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've already found a handful of articles in Spanish news and will expand the article now. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:BEFORE, meets GNG: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] A lot of them talk about his expulsion from the team in 2018 due to animal cruelty, which definitely should be included in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per sources presented by @NoonIcarus. Svartner (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets secondary sources per WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Sources above are routine match reports, routine contract signings and refbombing an alleged animal cruelty incident. Quero doesn't pass WP:CRIME either and it's UNDUE to focus on such a negative event. (Was he ever convicted?). The sources in the article aren't any better. Dougal18 (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the coverage of the animal cruelty incident is most likely the first thing people will see about Quero when searching for sources, this does not detract from the fact that he is a professional footballer with a modest (but sufficient for GNG) amount of coverage. I've improved the article since the AfD was started, and I'll review the sources I've added here:

La Vinotinto - Coverage of the beginning of Quero's career in Venezuela, talking about his breakthrough into the first team and including quotes from an interview conducted.

Táchira - Again talking of his early career, and his potential as a young player to represent his nation at under-20 level - includes quotes again, as well as information regarding his early life.

Liga FUTVE - Perhaps a primary source, but a pretty comprehensive article on Quero and his time with Falcón, again including quotes from the player.

These three sources covering his career, as well as a number covering the animal cruelty case, should be enough to satisfy GNG. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ligafutve is the official website for a league Quero played in and is not independent. tachira.gob.ve is a government site so I don't know how reliable it is. lavinotinto is nowhere near enough for a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only speaking about the animal cruelty: Quero published the incident on social media, it is the reason why he was expelled from the league and he apologized for it. He hasn't denied or excused himself for it, so I'm not sure if there's another side of the story that casts doubts on what happened. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously standards of WP:GNG. The sources are not cursory by any means and provide reasonable coverage of him beyond simple appearances. This is rather clear to me. Anwegmann (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. Apologies, I wasn't sure of the best way to propose these changes, but it seems AfD was the wrong place. Discussion should continue at Talk:Trinity Health (Livonia, Michigan)#Requested move 10 March 2024. (non-admin closure) IagoQnsi (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Health

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page. It seems that the Michigan-based Trinity Health is clearly the primary topic, as they are a massive system spanning half the country with 120,000 employees, whereas the North Dakota-based Trinity Health is a small local system primarily located in one town. I propose that Trinity Health (Livonia, Michigan) be moved to Trinity Health and that a hatnote be added linking to Trinity Health (Minot, North Dakota). With that hatnote, this disambiguation page would become unnecessary and thus can be deleted. IagoQnsi (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, Disambiguations, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let the RM run its course, if there is consensus the Michigan one is primary the DAB can be deleted under G14 but if there is no such consensus the DAB will need to stay at the base name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:33 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@IagoQnsi: Please withdraw this nomination and your instruction on the Move discussion to talk here. The correct place for the discussion is at the Move discussion on Talk:Trinity Health (Livonia, Michigan)#Requested move 10 March 2024: if there is agreement for the article to be moved, it will become the primary topic and the dab page will be unnecessary. (There's the added complication of the proposed move at Talk:Mercy Health (Michigan)#Requested move 10 March 2024, where the proposed new title of Trinity Health Michigan would probably merit inclusion in a dab page, or at least a hatnote ...). PamD 08:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candace Smith

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Trivial coverage for some bit roles. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bedivere (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page provided by Candace Smith is important and is necessary for people to know what a strong woman she is. Candace has helped many people around the world with a message of power, strength, and belief in one's self. Her message of "never dim your light for anyone" resonated with a friend of mine who needed to hear that message. Candace's roles in movies promotes a strong woman in the midst of overcoming obstacles, and becoming better because of it. Therefore, my suggestion is to Keep her page, because her story needs to be told to the world, as it will help women around the world. No question...Keep her page! Qsilver9 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside that this is your very first edit on Wikipedia, if you want to spread Candace's so called 'message' you could as well just purchase a web domain, buy some hosting, set up some WordPress page and publish some copycat inspirational phrases by Chat GPT. This is an encyclopedia, not an inspirational website. Bedivere (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Television, Law, Beauty pageants, California, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have misidentified "Candace Smith" as "Candice Smith" as evidenced by your discussion.

Candace Smith has starred in her own action flick, major motion Warner Bros. films, her own reality show, Millionaire Matchmaker, Survivor, Hawaii Five-0, Entourage and much more. She recently guest starred on Tacoma FD last year and has a new show. This is a personal attack and I do not like black women who survive sexual assault in Hollywood and speak out to be erased/ silenced.

ALL TV AND FILM CREDITS are verifiable on imdb at this link https://www.imdb.com/name/nm133576 Trichards1 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment I've removed Trichard's comment repeated three times below this line; adds nothing to the discussion, and you only have one vote (which has not been disclosed). Also, we don't source to IMDb. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article is starting to come under attack from editors with obvious conflicts of interest. I wouldn't be surprised if they're all Smith herself. City of Silver 05:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Nothing noteworthy here. And the blatant COI only reinforces that for me. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Leone

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

Deceased porn performer who did not have an article while she was alive. Death is not a notable event. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple news articles surrounding this person's death. Should not have been marked for deletion. 71.147.48.38 (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it was. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the discussion civil. An administrator can decide if this page will remain. Counterfeit Purses is now ranting on my Talk Page. Like I said, I am OK with the decision of the administrator either way. This is not personal. Yellowbear48 (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to an appropriate "list of deaths" article. Looks to be WP:BLP1E for her death. Phönedinger's jellyfish II (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the jellyfish. All news coverage about her appears to be exclusively about her death.— Moriwen (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only passes notability test because of death. Breaches. WP:BLP1E Jamesparkin (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter that she is notable NOT for her death, but for being in over 150 adult films, amassing over a million dollars, and for being a social media influencer. Her death was an event that covered her career (many events) as documented in the Internet Adult Film Database.Yellowbear48 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Question/suggestion (feel free to consider it's a !vote):~~ coverage being what it is, redirect to List_of_pornographic_performers_by_decade#Female_7. I've just added her name there (choose any of the numerous refs you might want to add). Note: I can't find any list of deaths that her page could be redirected to. Pornography in the United States might also be considered.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it need to be redirected to anywhere? How is directing her name to a list that she isn't in helpful to a reader? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is in the list. Redirecting as alternative to deletion because coverage exists, allow me to repeat myself. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry I thought I had added her before to the list; did not publish the edit; just did it now) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank She wasn't in the list when I made my comment. She won't be in that list if this article gets deleted. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first sentence, -again, my bad I had forgotten to publish her insertion- not the second: not all actors in the list have a standalone page (edit: on the English WP). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to disagree if you want, but that is a list of notable porn performers and Sophia Leone will be removed if this article is deleted. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you say so. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be kept regardless of if her name shows up in some arbitrary list. FrostSpider (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She actually was a notable performer. Let's be blunt about a couple of things. I'm sure there are scores of notable performers in the adult film industry that don't have pages because someone might be afraid to suggest creating one. They don't want to open themselves up to be called names for suggesting one. Second, she's more notable that a lot of names I see pop up on the recent passings page. I've seen countless regional TV and Radio host appear on the page, as well as many very obscure political figures from overseas. Some of who even Alexa could not find information on. Trust me, you delete Sophia's page, and I and others could recommend close to 5,000 pages on here for deletion. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fallacy I detect here by the pro-delete crowd is that she is notable due to her death - this is factually untrue and seems to miss the one-event stipulation's purpose. She did in fact receive massive coverage mainly after her death, but this coverage was based on many notable events throughout her life (on one major adult site, she is mentioned in numerous articles over the years). I also read the notability guidelines with regard to celebrities, and as a performer with over 100 films, in addition to the media coverage and her social media influence, she seems at minimum on the border of notability. Given that she now has an article from People magazine, I believe this crosses over into notability. I also note the growing number of objections to deletion on this page. Yellowbear48 (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are non-RS, the New York Post and others. I'm not sure why the Hindustan Times covers an article about her death from halfway across the world, when non-RS on this side of the planet ignore it. That strange sort of undisclosed promotional items in Indian media, that have no other coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Her death is notable in the sense that recently quite a few people with similar jobs have ended their lives. The pattern is notable. So Delete, but maybe cause for a meta topic? 95.96.130.127 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical superficial 'mainstream' news coverage most porn performers get when they die. Most of the sourcing seems questionable as well. Nothing else out there of substance to create a better article. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added Complex and Parade Magazine. These are fairly reputable sources. Yellowbear48 (talk) 06:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon re-reading this comment, whether conscious or unconscious, there is condescension regarding the profession of the performer (note the wording "most porn performers"). Notability is not decided by the moral views of editors. This is not meant as an attack on the editor - I merely note that the career-choice of the performer appears to be influencing some editors. Yellowbear48 (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather shocked she didn't have a page, considering she was one of the top performers in adult films in adult films in the late 2010's and very a brief time, was one of the top paid. The fact she didn't have one while she was alive was clearly an oversight. I say we keep her page and flesh it out better.

Because if what you said is going to be the standard, then there might be a couple of thousand pages that would be subject to deletion. Sportsfan1976 I'm only here because I'm not currently somewhere else. (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the arguments from everyone here and I also wholeheartedly agree with the majority of the editors opinion on this article. Abishe (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Abishe So you think the article should be deleted? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Humanly I feel deeply sorry for her premature and unjust death, but as porn actress she never made the definitive leap towards undisputed notability, probably because she never engaged in scenes which could grant her relevant awards in the industry. -- Blackcat 21:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did some quick digging on Sophia, and in addition to her extensive adult career, covered by significant news sources, she was a social media influencer with over 100,000 followers on Twitter and 300,000 followers on Instagram. I am certain that if given the time I could dig up sources to make her page more substantial with proper sourcing. I think an opportunity should be given to improve the article for some set period. Yellowbear48 (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will list here the reputable sources used or added for Sophia Leone.

1. People

2. The Independent

3. Complex

4. Parade Magazine

There are also other decent sources that have been added. I believe this list is superior to other pages I have seen on Wikipedia. Again, this is just my opinion. Yellowbear48 (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 19:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jmg38 (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She had a following (over 300,000), people are curious. This is where we go to learn. It sounds as if you have another axe to grind possibly with her employment. 66.214.145.179 (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with you that some may have an issue with her employment. She had over 400,000 followers on Twitter and Instagram combined - almost a half-million - and news coverage of her has been extensive. I will object to this article's removal at the highest levels, and will request a greater grace period. There is no consensus here as defined by Wikipedia policy. Yellowbear48 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 17:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Wasserstein

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

An active businesswoman, but I'm unable to find sufficient sourcing to indicate notability. The sources are connected with her and her work, or are passing mentions. Star Mississippi 15:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Star Mississippi 15:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that the description of the Chevalier of the Legion of Honor as France's highest honor is misleading; Chevalier is the lowest rank of the Legion of Honor, awarded to thousands of people yearly.— Moriwen (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, United Arab Emirates, Ireland, England, New York, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yovan Nagwetch

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim here is a nomination for a specialty music award, which would be fine to mention if the article were properly sourced but is not top-level enough to constitute an automatic pass of NMUSIC #8 on bad sourcing -- but the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with not even one reliable or GNG-building source shown at all.
There was, additionally, a completely unreferenced article about his band, which basically made no other notability claims at all besides this guy being in it, so I've redirected that to the BLP as well -- and I would also note that there isn't a single inbound link to this article from any other Wikipedia article: the redirects from the band and one of his album titles are the only inbound links leading to this, and until I unlinked them as recursive redirects just now this article was the only inbound link leading to the band or the album title either, so these three titles are essentially creating a self-contained walled garden.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him or his band from having to have much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources provided are not strong enough to establish notablility.@T.C.G. [talk] 22:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chidera Anthony

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

Contested PROD. The article claims that "He is regarded as one of the top artists in his area." but no proof of this. No evidence of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. This article was moved out of draftspace prematurely. A previous version was already sent to draft by Liz under the name of Draft:Luckystarzs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
clear "delete", no notability — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entirely fails WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage for this individual found. And this version of article appears to be an unfinished template. PROMO, very much spam. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom- does not meet notability requirements. Editing84 (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I recently declined AFC submission Draft:Luckystarzs with same content as this article. The mastermind behind both articles is named user:Luckystarzs, a clear/possble vandal/sock.ANU^writes 18:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator has move this article to Draft space and then removed the AFD tag. They have been blocked for self-promotional as all of their articles involve them and their career. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant example of self-promotion with no coverage whatsoever. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 06:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Makharadze

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

Only played 76 mins of one match and no sign of WP:SPORTBASIC. My searches yield nothing better than squad listings in GFF and Sportall. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 13 page views. Apart from that, the subject has no move for notability. The cited references were all databases and thus, fails WP: ATHLETE. Otuọcha (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails to meet WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinatin Gongadze

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

Had 2 caps back in 2006 but can't find any evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I can't find any coverage of the footballer of this name in any language, although there are a few namesakes, including a translator and a medical doctor. The best that I found on the footballer was Nakrebi, a database source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG. Demt1298 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Space travel in science fiction#Means of travel. At least until the draft is improved to a point where there is consensus among interested editors to move it back to mainspace. Sandstein 17:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inertialess drive

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a pure piece of WP:OR, poorly sourced to novels, short stories, games and like. While it is plausible the topic could be notable, given the ORish state of this, nothing here is rescuable; 80% of the article is a plot summary for Lensman series, and the remainder 20% is unsourced OR in the WP:IPC-failing style of "this term also appears in the following random works". WP:TNT treatment is advised, although WP:ATD-R allows for a less drastic solution of redirecting this to Space travel in science fiction where the term is mentioned. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Spaceflight. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m obviously biased, since I was the first contributor, but “a pure piece of WP:OR, poorly sourced” is clearly incorrect: The first two footnotes are uncontroversially secondary research, and there are nine other footnotes, which I think is above average for a Wikipedia article of this length. I can’t speak to the quality of citations by other contributors, but would welcome specific corrections.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, there seem to be 368 pages that link to it (a number which could perhaps use some filtering); that’s a lot of red links to fix.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 325 pages that transclude Template:Science fiction, which includes a link to inertialess drive, so the numbers for links to the latter are almost certainly heavily inflated by that (some pages may of course transclude the template and include a separate link to this article). TompaDompa (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FlashSheridan, could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here? I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world. TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> could you perhaps elaborate upon what you are referring to when you speak of secondary research here?

Citations to “The Epic of Space,” page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947, and to Samuel Lawrence Bigelow’s Theoretical and Physical Chemistry. Of Worlds Beyond was quite important in the intellectual history of early science fiction, and I dare say most readers have been puzzled by Dr Smith’s reference.

> I am a bit confused by the article itself in terms of what's in-universe and what's real-world.

That’s fair criticism, and I’d be happy to fix it.

— FlashSheridan (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I have that right, the article cites E. E. Smith's essay from Of Worlds Beyond (1947) to verify that Samuel Lawrence Bigelow's Theoretical and Physical Chemistry (1912) was the first mention of an inertialess drive? And this is real-world background information for what follows, which is all in-universe? TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I was able to access Of Worlds Beyond via the Internet Archive. The relevant passage on page 84 is I would not use mathematically impossible mechanics, such as that too-often-revived monstrosity of a second satellite hiding eternally from Earth behind the moon. Since the inertia of matter made it impossible for even atomic energy to accelerate a space-ship to the velocity I had to have, I would have to do away with inertia. Was there any mathematical or philosophical possibility, however slight, that matter could exist without inertia? There was—I finally found it in no less an authority than Bigelow (Theoretical Chemistry—Fundamentals). Einstein's Theory of course denies that matter can attain such velocities, but that did not bother me at all. It is still a theory—velocities greater than that of light are not absolutely mathematically impossible. That is enough for me. In fact, the more highly improbable a concept is—short of being contrary to mathematics whose fundamental operations involve no neglect of infinitesimals—the better I like it. So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from. I hardly think we can call this secondary research, contrary to your assertion that it is uncontroversially so. We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith. Combine this with the WP:Writing about fiction issues present here and the fact that the article otherwise relies entirely on the primary literature (i.e. the works of fiction themselves), and I think the description of the article in the nomination is rather apt. TompaDompa (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> So Smith does not actually say that Bigelow was the first one to propose inertialess travel, only that that's where he (Smith) got the idea from.

Fair point; the absence of contrary evidence is of course not conclusive, though for an intellectual history it is rather suggestive. Happy to make the correction.

> We're citing Smith about where Smith got inspiration for a story Smith wrote, in a passage describing that story by Smith.

Yes, in one of the key early books on the intellectual history of science fiction (admittedly rather a recondite area). Citing that didn’t seem like original research to me.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, but getting it straight from the horse's mouth is not exactly secondary research either, now is it? This entire article relies on WP:Primary sources, in violation of policy. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was published in a volume edited by someone else, as close as existed at the time to a scholarly publication on the subject. (One of the few available, in my experience, in ordinary bookshops, even decades later.) As I recall (from the few times I’ve done it myself), this would have allowed Dr Smith himself to cite it, so it seems odd for you to forbid someone else to rely on it.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may think it odd, but remember that there are significant differences between Wikipedia and scholarly sources. Scholarly sources encourage original thought, while WP:Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Scholarly sources largely prefer primary sources, while Wikipedia largely prefers secondary sources. And so on. Mind you that the only sentence in the entire article that (1) is referenced (2) to something other than a work of fiction is The possibility of inertialess travel was first suggested in Theoretical and Physical Chemistry, published in 1912 by the Tellurian chemist Samuel Lawrence Bigelow, an alumnus of Harvard.—and the sources there are Of Worlds Beyond (discussed above; I'll also note for the record that the note Piotrus alludes to below reads, in its entirety, "The Epic of Space," page 84, in Of Worlds Beyond, 1947. Dr. Smith gives the title as Theoretical Chemistry–Fundamentals, and provides only a last name. Given the other errors in “The Epic of Space,” e.g., “Trweel” for “Tweel” on page 80, the misspelling of “Constantinescu” on page 84, and, arguably, E. E. Evan's analysis of Triplanetary on page 87, the error does not seem implausible.), a library entry to verify the year of publication for Theoretical and Physical Chemistry, and a webpage that appears to get its information from Ancestry.com (at least, the webpage states at the bottom that RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb community.), a WP:Generally unreliable source per WP:ANCESTRY.COM, to verify that Bigelow went to Harvard. The rest either lacks any kind of source at all or relies improperly on the works of fiction themselves. TompaDompa (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space travel in science fiction where this is covered with better sources. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a split, here. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> Space travel in science fiction where this is covered with better sources.

No, that article doesn’t mention either Of Worlds Beyond or Theoretical and Physical Chemistry.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Key words: "better sources". As opposed to: WP:OR. PS. TompaDompa already explained it in detail above. It is quite possible we can add a sentene or two to the "Space travel..." article, based on secondary sources. And for the record, there will be no red links to fix - per the nom, there should be no hard deletion, just redirection (due to this failing WP:GNG, in particular, SIGCOV requirement). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And one more reply: it does not - and why should it? Those works are not mentioned in the nominated article outside a confusing footnote. And that footnote is very ORish, ex. "Given the other errors in...". Who says there were errors, and how is this relevant to the article? I am sorry, but I did say this is a "mess" and it needs a WP:TNT treatment, and I stand by this assessment. What was passable in 2006 is very much not so in 2024. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm very new here, so I'm not sure my opinion matters, and I'm probably going to make a mess out of the formatting expectations for this process because yikes. There do seem to be some sources that discuss this as a trope with value to the craft of science-fiction storytelling. I found a book that confirms Triplanetary as the first use and describes the trope as a means to end-run physics and allow galactic-scale storytelling (Gunn, James. Alternate Worlds: The Illustrated History of Science Fiction (3rd ed.). McFarland. p. 134. ISBN 978-1-4766-7353-0.). Paul Gilster is a fairly respected space technology writer who also describes the fictional history of the concept, including precursors to Triplanetary. and it's real-world futurist applications or likely, lack thereof (Gilster, Paul (2004). Centauri Dreams: Imagining and Planning Interstellar Exploration. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4419-1818-5.). I don't have access to this, but Google suggests some relevancy. There's also a lot of ufology nonsense about the topic, which I'm sure isn't enough to actually make a topic a thing but is... maybe worth noting in an article with wider context? It's a fictional element either way, after all. Lubal (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia in general and WP:Articles for deletion in particular. Being new in no way makes your input less valid/relevant/important. I took a look at those sources. Gunn makes a rather brief mention of inertialess drives on pp. 134–135. I would characterize that as a passing mention falling short of WP:Significant coverage of the topic (Gunn doesn't discuss the concept, he merely mentions it in the context of Smith's fiction). Gilster similarly briefly mentions inertialess drives on pp. 173–174. When it comes to your last source, searching for "inertialess" on Google Books gives me no results. So it does not appear to me that those sources would be a sufficient foundation for an article on this topic, though they may be useful for other articles on related topics. TompaDompa (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Re: That third source. That's... interesting, because Google gave me this snippet: "Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical “inertialess drive”, which was capable of reducing a spacecraft’s mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration. Such..." No idea as to further context; like I said, I don't have access to that one. And I certainly don't understand how Google handles searching/snippeting of otherwise "unavailable" text. Otherwise, is there a bright-line rule on what constitutes passing mention? Gilster, in particular, seems to give the topic a couple of paragraphs of attention in the context of fictional elements that some people hope might not be completely impossible (that cited footnote from Arthur C. Clarke might also be worth scaring up). On the other hand, the whole "ZPF might let us delete inertia" thing, Clarke included, is about six inches short of total nonsense, so while I think this is more than a "passing mention," I also don't think it's a source I'd want to hang my hat on. Lubal (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is indeed peculiar, though Google is of course known to be fickle at times. Alright: looking into it a bit more (i.e. checking a PDF of the book instead of the Google Books page), it turns out that the book says Some early SF writers posited a hypothetical "inertialess drive", which was capable of reducing a spacecraft's mass to zero and hence neutralizing its resistance to acceleration. Such drives appear in the novel Triplanetary by E. E. Smith, originally serialized in Amazing Stories in 1934, and in Kenneth Robeson's "The Secret in the Sky" from the May 1935 issue of Doc Savage magazine. These early treatments of inertialess drives assume that nullifying an object's mass would make it easier to accelerate and manoeuvre. That would be true if the inertial mass was reduced substantially, but not all the way to zero. on page 112 (annoyingly, Google lets me preview page 111 and 113, but not 112...). This, however, seems to be the only mention in the book.
  As to your question about whether there is a bright-line rule: not really, it comes down to editorial judgment. To quote myself from a 2021 AfD discussion:
  what WP:SIGCOV says is "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. There does not exist any general consensus about where to draw the line, so we judge it case-by-case. Some editors focus on length of coverage; a cut-off of WP:One hundred words has been suggested. Some editors focus on breadth of coverage. Some editors focus on depth of coverage.
  A pretty good starting point, in my opinion, is the following passage from WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Indeed. Which is why we ma want to consdier if we could add a short paragraph based on these sources to Space travel... ? It is a Good Article, and we cannot bloat it with fancrufty plot description and ORish examples, but the sources we found likely lend themselves to a sentence or two. What do you think? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if it changes anything. I agree that most of the sources discussing this topic don't individually have a lot to say about it, but there are quite a few sources that say something, and they aren't saying the same thing. I took a shot at workshopping what this might look like if we were going to rewrite it entirely and then keep it. It's at User:Lubal/Inertialess. Separately, there's another article at inertia negation that probably more or less overlaps this topic and is arguably even worse. That one might need to be redirected or deleted, too. Lubal (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lubal I've AfD the terrible article you reported; as for your rewrite, it looks quite solid although right now I do not have time to spot check the sources. I wonder what User:TompaDompa will say? Side note: if the current article is deleted and then you add your version, it might be eligible for DYK. Otherwise, if we replace the content now, it would not, I think. Which does not make sense, IMHO, but rules are rules. Perhaps I misunderstand them - ping @BlueMoonset for a comment on this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Piotrus, it's unlikely that an article that's deleted and recreated in short succession will be considered eligible for DYK. Especially since any recreation would likely include the pre-deletion history. Whatever is ultimately done, don't include DYK in your calculus unless the article ends up a 15K+ prose character monster. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlueMoonset I see. That's unfortunate, seems to me like it is a topic to discyss at DYK. What Lubal did is to effectively write a new article; why shouldn't his work be recognized by the DYK community? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I'm unsure if I'll have time to check Lubal's draft at User:Lubal/Inertialess; I'll get back to you if and when I do. As a note to the closer, it may be worth relisting this discussion specifically to give editors time to reach consensus on whether the draft should replace the old version. TompaDompa (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Same author as the negation, but this might be notable. Still looks bad enough to warrant WP:TNT: Inertia damper. Any thoughts on what to do with that one? AfD, or is it passable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space travel in science fiction per Shooterwalker. Secondary sources to establish notability are very thin. What can be properly sourced is probably worth a paragraph in a broader article rather than it's own article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404 What do you think about replacing it with User:Lubal/Inertialess? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That draft is a significant improvement. I am essentially neutral as to whether it works better as a separate article or a section in the broader topic. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Space travel in science fiction#Means of travel. After seeing the draft article, I'm still not really convinced that it needs to be separate and not just part of the broader article on space travel. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Omeje

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

Seems to fall way short of WP:SPORTBASIC #5. I can find nothing other than database sources like Playmaker Stats and a stats-only scorecard like ABC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I can't also find less or any coverage about him. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP: SIGCOV Otuọcha (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per Criteria 5, I believe it's far way from meeting it since they are sports database and an article from Goal.com. Well, it clearly states, "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. It is not a requirement for notability...". Besides, the article was not independent of the subject. So fails all WP: ATHLETE. From another perspective, the article clearly lack sourcing and much can't be related from the Internet. Hence, it fails WP: GNG. Otuọcha (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laldingngheta

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

His professional career lasted only 67 mins and I'm concerned that this doesn't meet WP:SPORTBASIC #5 on available sources. I found a squad list mention on Inkhel and then trivial mentions in New Indian Express, Sportskeeda and ISN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mizoram. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CyberEmotions

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination per this discussion at RfD. Article was created in 2011 and then BLARred in 2014. A failed attempt at restoring the article was made a few days ago by Belbury which was then reverted by Randykitty, and there's apparently no agreement in sight. Pinging other editors who participated in the linked RfD: Thryduulf, Lunamann, Voorts. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Websites. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No serious disagreement here, my "attempt at restoring the article" was just to undo the redirect and restore the previous version of the article, after having followed a CyberEmotions wikilink that took me to a page that didn't explain the term. No view from me either way on whether the article should exist. Belbury (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The previous AfD had two keep !votes, but neither specified any policy reason for keeping the article. There was no source discussion and the only nod to notability was that it had "big players" in the project. But it was, nevertheless, just a research project that seems to have no lasting notability. Research outputs would be primary sources, but, in fact, could be useful in articles that talk about notable subjects for which these are relevant. For instance Sentiment in Twitter events would be interesting in something on the Oscars, or Twitter, or an article about group dynamics. Those notable subjects are not the project itself. Redirect would be fine if there were agreement on a redirect target, but failing that, this should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill research project. 40 participants sounds impressive, as does the list of the organisations where they work, but a standard NIH grant to a single investigator usually runs up to a million $$ for 4 years. The EU grant contrasts rather paltry with that: 3.6 million Euros (augmented with existing funding 4.6 million) for 4 years for those 40 investigators. Usually these consortia are ephemeral and CyberEmotions is no exception. It was closed in January 2013 and has disappeared without much trace since. Of course, notability is not temporary, but almost all of the references present in the article date back to when the project wa active and none are the in-depth independent sources required for GNG. Some don't even mention this project at all (e.g. ref 4), which is all too common in this kind of drummed up promotional "articles". Note that one of the conditions to obtain EU funding id to publicize the project and its funding sources as much as possible, and WP is then an obvious target. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. The article has already been speedy-deleted under WP:A11 by Deb. (non-admin closure) — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giaxul

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

Not notable; fails WP:GNG. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 08:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 09:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: pure fraud or neologism from editor with disruptive editing elsewhere (Faxuliopa). Klbrain (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion WP:A11 which I've now tagged accordingly. Clearly a made-up name. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Wharton (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman, with no significant coverage in WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search turned up only more of what's cited here: primary sources, press releases and sponsored content. Tone, unsourced content and creator's user page suggest conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines. Sources on Google that is at least reliable only shows subject being appointed as CEO without any other indepth details. Checking the article's sources, most of them are unreliable or primary sources. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage I find is exclusively PR items. What's used in the article now is non-RS or so-so sources, per CiteHighlighter. The last one is the only "green" source and describes this person taking a trip (and was written by the subject here), hardly the stuff of notability in Wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources too PR based and not in depth enough to establish notability. Editing84 (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems far too much like WP:PROMO to me InDimensional (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Sourcing consists of YouTube, LinkedIn, press releases, alumni interviews (not WP:INDEPENDENT). We have relatively articles in Fast Company and Entrepreneur magazine, two known sources, but they are self-published and thus cannot establish notability. TLA^tlak 01:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – most are just press release, for example businesswire here. Again, most sources are not from independent news outlet sources. Unless other sources exist. Until then, delete for now.-- Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Davidson

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

Still in the scope of amateur. Not satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC. Htanaungg (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, and Scotland. Htanaungg (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until he appears for the first team. There is some coverage of him: [14], [15], [16], and [17]. But I think it is still WP:TOOSOON for this article. Anwegmann (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultra Media & Entertainment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Jhakaas

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

All the sources like [18] published by PTI News Network, or related to launch of the OTT platform. There is no independent coverage to meet WP:ORG Lordofhunter (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Business. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, Internet, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ultra Media & Entertainment. I also don't see independent coverage, and I note that there's no articles on non-English wikis either, so I don't think we're just missing foreign-language sources.— Moriwen (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1944 Kearsley Shire Council election

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

I don't see how a non capital city LGA election with just 7,936 voters can possibly be notable. Steelkamp (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Second line of the article clearly establishes notability, "the first time a communist party had won a local government majority in the English-speaking world" is 100% notable

Obviously other Kearsley Shire Council elections should not and do not have their own pages Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't necessarily mean this election deserves its own page though. This could easily be accommodated within the Kearsley Shire page itself. Steelkamp (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Kearsley Shire can cover this history. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I am surprised this article was even nominated for deletion. The second and third paragraphs of the introduction clearly establish notability. This is a notable local government election in Australian history, one that has attracted both specific studies by historians (Martin Mowbray's article in the leading journal Labour History, which is cited in the article) and observation in larger studies of the CPA. Stuart Macintyre in The Party frames his discussion of the CPA's local government efforts around its 1944 success in Kearsley (pp.155–156). J.D. Playford's PhD thesis, "Doctrinal and Strategic Problems of the Communist Party of Australia, 1945-1962" (ANU, 1962) suggests that the support the CPA secured in Kearsley and other municipalities influenced its postwar electoral strategy and objectives (pp.30–31). I also do not see the relevance of Kearsley not being a capital city LGA; much of note in Australian politics has occurred beyond capital cities and we should not encourage a capital-centric attitude. My recommendation, far from deletion, is expansion: there is plenty more to say about this unusual and notable result. Axver (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only did this election end with a controversial result (the election of a handful of communist party members (5/8 seats) - the most in any local election, leading to a government majority), but there was ample coverage, and an indication of lasting effects. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 3:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep the nominator's personal opinion regarding notability is irrelevant; there are more than adequate reliable sources, both contemporary and subsequent (even 50 years later, eg [19]), to satisfy WP:NEVENT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn and Trainsskyscrapers. Academic coverage is enough. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 shooting of Sonoma County sheriff's deputies

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

Just another of many shootings in the US. No fatalities other than the shooter. No ongoing media interest after one week. WWGB (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. WWGB (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nothing to say besides the fact it happened PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Tragic, but rather run-of-the-mill for our purposes. Left guide (talk) 12:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – NOTNEWS; no coverage beyond the local press. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTNEWS and doesn't meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. To the creator: I would recommend looking at another incident in San Bernardino County back in January if you're interested in writing an article. Raskuly (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above; no lasting or greater significance; no real reason to be considered encyclopaedic. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ROTM NOTNEWS. Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 04:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Palmerston City Council election

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

Palmerston is a satellite city of Darwin of 37,862 people. There are simply not enough sources to make this a worthwhile Wikipedia page. Steelkamp (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Normally it wouldn't deserve to have a page but given the elections delays and news coverage (it is also one of only two city councils in the NT) it's notable enough AmNowEurovision (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I did find a few sources about the election. I can't read this one because it's paywalled, so I don't know how good it is. This ABC source is pretty good, but another one is mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election result. Otherwise, I couldn't find anything that could help meet WP:GNG. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it's a city council with a fair bit of News Corp and ABC coverage given its multiple delays

Obviously the normal non-delayed elections wouldn't/shouldn't have their own pages Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local council elections aren't generally eligible for articles unless there's coverage "above and beyond" the election, including WP:LASTING coverage. I don't see that here. SportingFlyer T·C 12:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and SportingFlyer. Sal2100 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 23:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cornell Big Red Marching Band. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell Big Red Pep Band

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

Uncited, potentially unciteable. No clear indication of notability here/or of coverage to establish that. [Note that I attend Cornell, have no connection with this org.] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cornell Big Red Marching Band, since the Pep Band is affiliated with that organization. - Kzirkel (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karo people (East Africa)

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

I believe that the ethnic group described by this article is the Bari people. The article consists of original research advocating for the 'Karo' name over Bari. I can find no reference for its claims. The three references provided were all published years before the events described in the article were alleged to have taken place. I was able to retrieve the full text of two of them (Seligman and Yunis) and found that they did not contain the word 'Karo' at all. Confusingly, there does appear to be a Karo ethnic group in East Africa: the Karo people of Ethiopia, but they are not the Karo (Bari) people described here. ATDT (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. ATDT (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your Time Is Gonna Come

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:NSONGS. Most of what I found in BEFORE were mere mentions. This article relies on interviews (not independent) and discogs (WP:SPS). Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Led Zeppelin (album) as failing notability guidelines, as well as recommending protection to that page. If deleted, also support salting the title. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Virtually every Led Zeppelin song is going to meet WP:GNG. This is no exception.

Welch, Chris (2009). Led Zeppelin : the stories behind every Led Zeppelin song. London : Carlton. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-84732-286-9. Credited to Page and John Paul Jones, this gave Jones a chance to show off his abilities on the church organ, while Page made use of a Fender pedal steel guitar. Played on the band's early dates in Scandinavia, the song was later dropped from the show. Jones uses bass pedals on the organ to fill out the sound, until Plant begins to protest at the woeful lack of courtesy shown by the modern girl. "Lying, cheating, hurting, that's all you ever seem to do," he grumbles. But although she drives him insane, one day her time is gonna come and she'll find him gone. The pedal steel that Page uses is slightly out of tune, which adds to the strangely plaintive air that persists until Bonham's sternly bashing drums bring a sense of direction to the final chorus. Part of this song was sometimes used on the band's 'Whole Lotta Love' medley.
Somach, Denny (2012). Get the Led out : how Led Zeppelin became the biggest band in the world. New York : Sterling. ISBN 978-1-4027-8941-0. Only "Your Time Is Gonna Come" is not known to have been performed live during that period, probably because it requires an organ, an instrument to which John Paul Jones did not have access during concerts until later. Jason Bonham has said that the song's bright and cathedral-like organ prelude- -which he heard on a record player at his house as a child was one of his earliest memories, and made him curious about music before he finally understood that it was his father's profession. Here, Plant croons a vengeful lyric over a pastoral riff played mainly on acoustic guitar with occasional add-ins from Page on electric lap steel, an instrument he might have been fiddling with for the very first time. Page was, after all, a guy who'd joined the Yardbirds not as a guitarist but as a bassist- and he'd never played bass before, either! No portion of the lyrics to "Your Time Is Gonna Come" has been traced to any previous sources, but if Plant was the lyricist, the writing credits don't reflect it.
Led Zeppelin : you shook me. Blitz Books. 2017. p. 26. ISBN 978-1-9997050-7-7. Segues from Dazed And Confused with a keyboard sound that although used sparingly by John Paul Jones was to become very much a Led Zeppelin sound. Nice gentle guitar from Jimmy gives this song a lovely feel. Along with Black Mountain side this track gives a nice respite from some rather exciting and heavy tracks now the album is on CD. In the days of vinyl of course this was a gentle (ish) start to side two.
Shadwick, Keith (2005). Led Zeppelin : the story of a band and their music : 1968-1980. San Francisco : Backbeat Books. p. 52. ISBN 978-0-87930-871-1. On today's CD versions it segues into the following track, 'Your Time Is Gonna Come', as it had from 'You Shook Me'. Considering Page's close involvement in all things Zeppelin up to the present day, one can only assume that this unbroken movement of songs is intended. Certainly the César Franck-chorale-like organ intro to 'Your Time' (played by Jones) is in the same key in which 'Dazed' concludes, so it may well have been the original intention, thwarted by the time limitations of vinyl at the time. When Jones makes the transition into the riff of Your Time Is Gonna Come', the tune's roots are laid bare. The verse's structure is very close to 'Hey Joe', as performed by Jimi Hendrix, down to the detail of the cadential guitar tag. Plant's vocal follows a different route to 'Hey Joe', although the lyrics have a similar message about women paid back for alleged wrongdoings to long-suffering lovers. The song, another Page composition, is undistinguished, with a hackneyed chorus that even Page's arranging skills can't mask. He uses pedal-steel guitar for the first time in a studio, but by his own later admission it is out of tune. The song does however give Plant the opportunity to deliver an entire song without having to resort to screeching, and he does well.

Jfire (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of notable coverage per above. Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs some work but good sources are plentiful InDimensional (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted, and the sources given by JFire above only scratch the surface. There is enough analysis by reliable authors out there to expand this article significantly. Here's another: Led Zeppelin All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track by Jean-Michel Guesdon and Philippe Margotin. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Led Zeppelin band is exceptionally influential. The past AfD resulted in a merge but a lot more coverage has shown up in the past 20 years, some of which is noted by Jfire TLA^tlak 03:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSK #1 (non-admin closure) Jfire (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piwi+

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm at a bit of a loss at what's going on here. Nominator Piwipie (talk · contribs) has not given any explanation for why this should be deleted… but their nomination doubled as the contesting of a redirect to Groupe Canal+ — which has since been reverted by Chris troutman, noting that this is a GNG failure. I at least concur that there is no reason why this should be an article (at the very least, certainly not in that state…), but am not entirely sure at this time if this nomination should just be given a procedural close. (There's been a bit of disruption at these Canal+-related articles and redirects lately, it appears; see also a [much more legitimate] nomination for Télétoon+.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3BG Supply Co.

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

Promotional, fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is mostly routine (funding, acquisitions); or a listing without significant coverage. There's a single source I would consider borderline, a profile in an industry publication (Industrial Distribution), but that seems like it. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Indiana. ~ A412 ^talk! 01:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails notability guidelines; all sources on Google shows up routine news coverage with nothing indepth. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 15:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMOtional article with no meaningful history. DrowssapSMM 01:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Political ideas in science fiction

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

This is another WP:OR mess, almost unreferenced, part-list, part-text, like recently deleted religious ideas in science fiction (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious ideas in science fiction) was (so this fails not just OR, but also WP:V and WP:IPC). Now, political science fiction is very much a notable genra and it is somewhere on my to-do list, but what we have here is too WP:ORish to merit anything but WP:TNT. Even the few references used and external links are useless, this needs to be written from scratch. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The topic is certainly notable; The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has a fairly ambitious entry, for example. /Julle (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all of these are "science" fiction, just regular fiction. We already have Utopian and dystopian fiction. We also have Category:Social science fiction, Category:Science fiction themes, Category:Fiction about society, and various others. There are reliable sources covering alternative societies in science fiction such as: https://www.britannica.com/art/science-fiction/Alternative-societies Dream Focus 03:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic is probably notable enough to have an article, but is such a mess, being almost entirely unsourced and comprised mostly of original research, that it needs some WP:TNT. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO / WP:NOTESSAY. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious ideas in science fiction is good guidance here. I would accept a simple redirect to political science fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: and TNT. DrowssapSMM 00:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While technically notable, the current article is full of original research and contains a sizeable list that lacks any real standards for inclusion. Honestly, it needs to be destroyed so that something else can be written. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In agreement with others that while the subject itself is technically notable, this article is indeed a "WP:OR mess", and in dire need of WP:TNT. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I won't go straight keep since that would start a discussion (not shying away, just feeling I woulnd't have the time to reply/ research properly), but I'm inclined to point out that science fiction (and fiction in general) has developed a plethora of political ideas that are unique and not seen in the real world, and at least some of these merit encyclopedic entries to whatever extent. And this need not necessarily be political science fiction, it's just fiction that describes a specific political system. For instance, right now I'm going through the Shadowmarch tetralogy, and while it's not in the least political science fiction, it goes into fine detail about systems of the lands and monarchies presented there. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ouro If you look at comments by me and others, you'll see we agree this is a notable topic. The problem is it needs to be written from scratch, with sources. See WP:TNT, etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Piotrus My complete agreement here. Hence the comment. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See Science fiction#As protest literature. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Doc Rossi

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

Subject fails ANYBIO and MUSICBIO. I could not find significant coverage in independent sources. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Italy, Portugal, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines with no relevant entries on Google. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Subject does not meet MUSICBIO. DrowssapSMM 19:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability or significant coverage InDimensional (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahan Kabondho

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Quick search reveals only one direct news mention, this article, which is already cited in the article.

It's possible there's more coverage in non-English sources, but appears to be non-notable without significant coverage at time of nomination. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 02:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Poetry, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet SIGCOV or NMUSIC. DrowssapSMM 19:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first article is the only one strictly about this person that I can find. I suppose there could be more in the local language, but I can't find any. Lack of sourcing unless others are found, so not meeting notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 radio stations in South Carolina as WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTBI-FM

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

Subject fails NCORP. Beyond what Tabernacle Baptist Church says about their own broadcasting, I only found ROUTINE listings that you'd find about a radio station. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and South Carolina. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Per BURDEN. OP says they found "routine listings that you'd find about a radio station"....then add them. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in South Carolina: it appears to have ended up here because of an objection to a previous redirect to WBPB, a station this station was previously a simulcast of but continued its previous programming after WBPB was sold. In the absence of any evidence of independent notability (at least on the surface, this seems to be a relatively run-of-the-mill religious station), the correct solution would have been to retarget as an {{R to list entry}}. (This is a clear case where an article would have been more likely to persist under the looser "guidelines" of 15 years ago that declared all FCC-licensed stations "notable", but a 2021 RfC revealed there was no consensus for media entities having any looser guidelines than GNG (much less NCORP).) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in South Carolina: per Wcquidditch. DrowssapSMM 19:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT, lacking any claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Courcelles

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Did some digging and found most mentions about his brother who had his face cut open. The rest are passing mentions and do not contribute to WP:SIGCOV. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Canada. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another of the many hundreds of NN articles created in defiance of consensus and notability standards by Dolovis, the subject never played beyond the semi-professional level, and has never met any iteration of NHOCKEY, never mind of the GNG. Ravenswing 10:03, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV showing notability. The only sources currently are databases. Let'srun (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY, or any other notability guideline. DrowssapSMM 19:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~: Some coverage in French. [20] and [21]. Had a major injury from the sport he played, so it mostly focuses on that aspect of his career. I suppose having a major injury and returning to the sport gets you notability, he's only played in the junior leagues, not I don't think he's otherwise notable. Some coverage here of his arrest for drunk driving [22], [23]. Some coverage here [24]. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b The major injury is his brother, Sebastien. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 03:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he's not notable, the first two articles I've mentioend focus on his brother for the most part. 3 and 4 are about a drunk driving charge, 5 seems to be about him. Not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 .

Editors are free to create a redirect from this page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Masi

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

Absent sources, there is not an argument for WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, New York, and Virginia. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails notability guidelines. No reliable sources found to establish notability whatsoever. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 16:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was originally a redirect to Phil Masi, who was a baseball player. It may be better to restore that redirect. DrowssapSMM 19:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G.I. Joe fallacy

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

This manufactured phrase of recent coinage does note seem at all notable to me. If it is just a case of Cognitive bias, it can at best be merged there. BD2412 T 00:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two unique references, one of which is a non-peer-reviewed working paper and the other a blog. I can find plenty of other mentions but all are SPS. Looks like a case of WP:NEOLOGISM. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should this phrase get any real traction and coverage, we can always re-create the article, as it's just a definition right now anyway. Cortador (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A neologism that doesn't have any notability at the moment. DrowssapSMM 18:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources only give enough for a definition. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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