Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 22
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Zivit Inbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreliable information. No RS. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Israel, and Australia. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete orphan article that looks like a CV. WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability, this is just promotional. Fails WP:GNG among other notability cirteria, and WP:NOTCV. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: PROMO with no sources outside of PR items or lists. Even my searches only turn up PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Israel. WCQuidditch ✎ 02:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I searched for reliable sources and found no evidence of notability. Marokwitz (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per norm Robertjamal12 ~ 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Looks just like a CV, clearly intended as promotional. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: not notable. TarnishedPathtalk 08:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete nothing notable about the topic. Chekidalum (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong delete: promotional material without any evidence of WP:GNG. Contributor892z (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. It doesn't appear to be promotional - I don't see an obvious connection to the creator. I am, however, confused why anyone would create an article about a small business owner who has no substantial legacy and has not garnered any coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Institute for Political and Legal Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
according to https://web.archive.org/web/20061019054352/http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EPTW/eptw8/eptw8l.html - the IPLE is a programme of study developed in New Jersey - not an organisation. The reference is dated 1995. This is the reference that I can find to IPLE. That suggests it was not widely used. On that basis, I suggest this page is deleted. Newhaven lad (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Education, United States of America, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ✎ 17:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)- Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
- Huberman, A.M.; Miles, M.B. (2013). Innovation up Close: How School Improvement Works. Environment, Development and Public Policy: Public Policy and Social Services. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4899-0390-7. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
- Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978). Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
- United States. Office of Education (1974). Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
- Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar. [1], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources. James500 (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The keep votes have presented no reliable sources indicaticating notability and there is consensus that this is a subtopic that ought to be covered in the main article rather than forked. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Radical pro-Beijing camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant content fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). The sources that do exist, almost all of which are media sources rather than academic, mostly provide the WP:SKYBLUE statement that some members of the pro-Beijing camp hold more radical politics than others. The sources do not support that this is a distinct political formation from the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- comment: my apologies for the linking issues which I've tried to fix. I think I may have had a slip-up with the capitalization of "camp" in one instance somewhere" Simonm223 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't fork of Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) when editing the Radical pro-Beijing camp article; I fork of the "激進建制派" article in the Chinese Wikipedia. ProKMT (talk) 06:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- You will need to demonstrate not just that some members of the pro-Beijing camp are politically radical but that there is a distinct radical pro-Beijing camp. This is the issue. Your citations you've added refer to individuals as radicals but do not infer any connection among them in their capacity as radicals rather than as members of the pro-Beijing camp. Simonm223 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) - Although the article is a stub and not deserving of a separate page, it is an important political term and is easily coverable within the main article. Royz-vi Tsibele (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Radical pro-Beijing [camp] is part of the pro-Beijing camp. However, "radical pro-Beijing" is a political term used in Hong Kong, and the article must be preserved because it is also detailed in the Chinese Wikipedia. It should never be merged into the Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) article, especially since it is necessary to describe radical organizations or politicians individually within the pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong). ProKMT (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment please present reliable sources demonstrating this is a distinct political organization. Simonm223 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge with Pro-Beijing camp (Hong Kong) per Royz-vi Tsibele's rationale - Amigao (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)- Comment: Some of the sources are low-quality or mention individual names only in passing. This is usually not sufficient to label someone as belonging to a certain camp. Vacosea (talk) 17:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- And to associate them with a few minor incidents of violence perpetrated by allegedly aligned civil society groups. Simonm223 (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that the article makes it seem like there is an organised group with known members. From re-reading it it seems that this "camp" (a word that doesn't suggest organisation) is the eqivalent of "left-wing Labour" in the UK or "Pro-Trump Republican" in the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is that this article makes it seem like there is an organized group with known members who constitute a political camp. This is not, at all, the case. This is, as I said above, simply a content-fork to make the WP:SKYBLUE that some politicians in Hong Kong have extreme political stances. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I referred to the Chinese Wikipedia when I decided on the title of the article: zh:激進建制派. I believe that English and Chinese may have different meanings. Moreover, while traditional conservatism does not have the same meaning as radical conservatism, it can be used in a similar sense in that it is reactionary. ProKMT (talk) 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I assume this is radical as in "really very a lot", not radical as in "totally awesome" or "burn it down and start over". -- asilvering (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I can't even understand this article in order to evaluate it. It seems to be saying that the same people are both radical and traditionalist. How is that possible? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've been going through the sources carefully and, frankly, with many of them there's no indication of relevance in the slightest to the topic of any organized political group, camp, bloc or formation. The whole article is WP:SYNTH trying to construct a conspiracy out of a few conservative politicians and some civil society groups they are not formally linked to. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to know what editors commenting over the weekend and today think should happen with this article and why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and then delete and create-protect per WP:FORK and WP:SALT. I'm confused again why this was even created. It reads like a parody created by Terry Gilliam. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Matroska. Having had that AfD closed as 'keep', this is now a viable close and is supported by consensus. Daniel (talk) 01:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Multimedia Container Format (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Abandoned software project. Zero independent sources, nobody cares: tagged since 2022 - Altenmann >talk 20:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× 23:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect into Matroska. Streamline8988 (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Which is also nominated for deletion. But maybe together they will survive. the WP:RS scrutiny. - Altenmann >talk 07:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Merge and Redirect into Matroska. Absolutely no chance of this having any reason being kept. An unreferenced crummy article. X (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to David Weinberger. Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Small Pieces Loosely Joined (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage indicating specific notability. Could just be a mention in David Weinberger's article. ZimZalaBim talk 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep or merge - This book seems to meet WP:NBOOK per these two reviews I found on Google Scholar 1 (PDF) 2. Also, the phrase "Small pieces loosely joined" seems to have quite a bit of currency even within the citing articles [2]. Psychastes (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge is fine. There's room in David Weinberger for it, and if anyone wants to expand it they can spin it back out. -- asilvering (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ajay Raju (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable lawyer, not known for any notable achievements in his field. Doesn't seem to be known for holding any academic or law journal positions, involvement in notable cases, etc. Reliable sources are mainly smaller local outlets (in the Philadelphia area). Bridget (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Pennsylvania. Bridget (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Lawyer that has his own law firm isn't notable. Being a "boutique" firm is fancy wording for specialist law firm, nothing notable. The reads as a biographical profile suited for somewhere else, not for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Madhya Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 02:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: An article that reads more of family and a simple biography (blog). Lacks context which doesn't show importance per subject notability guidelines. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete promotional article which does not state why the subject is notable, per rationale above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chekidalum (talk • contribs) 11:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Draftify. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Stumble Guys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails the general notability guidelines, with no critic reviews in sight and limited sourcing on the game in general. I managed to find one "review" from Pure Xbox [3], but I don't think that is enough to save this article. λ NegativeMP1 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 20:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 21:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Review from Multiplayer.it, reliable source per WP:VG/RS, though not enough to pass WP:GNG. --Mika1h (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify The article seems pretty rushed, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. I did notice the Pure Xbox review, and the Multiplayer.it review, but does not seem notable. The article needs to be made better. I suggest the article creator takes the article to draftspace, and works on it a little more, as right now, the article is not ready for mainspace. More reliable sources should help a lot. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Also sources from Pocket Gamer and Video Games Chronicle I found from the previous deletion discussion. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There are two reliable reviews from Multiplayer.it and Pure Xbox, which, along with other significant coverage articles — other than the ones already presented here, such as VGC, I've also found this Eurogamer source — I think it is enough to meet WP:GNG. Skyshiftertalk 15:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify: Looks pretty rushed to me. Recommended this page is put into the draftspace and work on this a bit more. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify, This article is a bit undercooked, so let's put it back in the oven. Samoht27 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify The Multiplayer.it review to be the only reliable review that provides significant coverage about the game. Many of the other sources listed here are bulletins or updates about commercial performance, such as topping the app charts, which is helpful but not something that would establish notability. The Pure Xbox article is helpful and a reliable source but not strong as a review; the fairly bland positive sentiments paired with the developer's input ("we were advised about during our hands-on session") implies that the writer was not in a position to offer any critical analysis of the game. As stated by others above, this could be made into a notable article but I'm not seeing it from the sources everyone has brought up. Draftifying is an appropriate ATD. VRXCES (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Luke Rossouw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up in my searches are trivial mentions in match reports and lineup announcements. JTtheOG (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete A reasonable amount of coverage, but not enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Arthur Gill (priest) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There appears to be insufficient notability for this priest. Chumpih t 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Or, failing that, redirect to Archdeacon of Cloyne. As with other similar articles by the creator contributor, there is nothing to indicate that the subject has any notability independent of the role/job that they held. The sources in the article (including this directory style entry alongside HUNDREDS (thousands?) of other clerical people) do not constitute material biographical coverage. Nor can I find any. The sources barely support (as the creator, frankly, should have done) a sentence or two about the subject WP:WITHIN the article on the role that they held. Other than for the "completionist" reasons that seems to have driven most of the creator's submissions, there is nothing to support or justify a short sub-stub/stand-alone biographical entry. Guliolopez (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. No reliable sources to validate notability of this individual. Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not inherently notable by virtue of their office. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Twe directory listings is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a simple listing without contextual information and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The few references available are about individual programming and not the programming as a whole. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Pakistan, Europe, and United Kingdom. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This channel seems to be an international service mostly consisting of Pakistani shows that are not specific to it. No original programming, no list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm generally agree of it per WP:RS & WP:GNG for CNMall41 and Sammi Brie. Although the references are few, this is similar to Hum TV but this article is a broadcast coverage from Pakistan. Not original programming and no specific list occurs. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Lack of original programming & WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, including the lack of specific materials or sources per WP:SIGCOV. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Petrol Ofisi. An extensive analysis of the sources has concluded that the only in-depth source, the Forbes article lacks the independence needed. Eastmain has made the argument that the remaining sources, in total, are adequate for notability but the consensus is that simple notices of appointments, and incidental coverage are insufficient. This would normally result in a deletion, but Jfire has suggested redirecting to the company that Mr. Abbasoğlu leads, and this alternative to deletion seems appropriate. The name of the CEO is listed in that article, and he is so closely associated with this company that a redirect is unlikely to cause confusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Mehmet Abbasoğlu (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails GNG or relevant specefic criteia. Not enough independent significant coverage.
- Source 1: Petrol Ofisi reached a market share of 23.09 percent (translated), Reliable? Unknown (likely), Independent? Yes, Significant coverage? No
- Source 2:Petrol Ofisi CEO Abbasoğlu: Our only bottleneck is our roads (translated) Reliable? Not likely, Significant coverage? No (Routine coverage of a conference, only quotes the CEO's statement)
- 3:Petrol Ofisi Group accelerates investments in line with Turkey's national energy strategy, Reliable? Not likely (State-run), Significant coverage? No (About company announcements, not the subject of the article)
- 4:Vitol-owned Petrol Ofisi agrees to purchase BP’s Turkish fuel operations, Reliable? Unknown, Independent? No (Publisher owns the company), Significant coverage? No (One-line mention)
- 5:404-error
- 6:Turkey’s Petrol Ofisi announces new chief executive officer, Reliable? No (Likely an advertisement), Independent? No (Likely an advertisement, no bylines, promotional tone, likely WP:RSNOI applies), Significant coverage? No (Mainly discusses company position changes, not the subject)
- 7:Change of general manager at Petrol Ofisi, Press release citing company statement
- 8:How A Gritty Market Leader Transformed Out Of A ‘Doomed’ Industry, Forbes contributor promo, not reliable by itself, further it's mostly an interview so primary source
- 9:Mehmet Abbasoğlu became the General Manager of Petrol Ofisi, similar to source 7, Press release citing a company statement
- Sources 10-16, more of the same. Waste of time and energy detailing here.
X (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Excluding the material from Forbes and sources where the person is an employee or director, the references seem fine. These are all valid references for a corporate executive. Newspaper articles aren't press releases; while a company announcement may be the starting point for a newspaper story about an executive appointment, the newspaper makes its own decisions about whether the announcement is newsworthy and what to include. Anadolu Agency is a legitimate news agency despite being state-run, although some caution is needed when considering its coverage of politics. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- In my view, appointment news (yes technically may not be Press releases, but the specific references I mentioned as PR merely report anything independent but relay/quote the company statement) fo-shizzle falls under routine coverage. X (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, routine mill news based on press releases, mentions, etc do not meet WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Petrol Ofisi. The only source with significant coverage is the WP:FORBESCON piece, which is not RS. The reliable sources are routine announcements of his appointment as CEO. No notability independent of the company, hence redirect. Jfire (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The creator essentially only edits articles about Turkish businessmen, which leads me to think that his editing scope is too narrow to understand what is encyclopedic. That's the charitable POV. In full, there is just insignifcant coverage in reliable sources. Every one of the thousands of business person who has any head for marketing will get press releases published in small business journals, but that does not make them notable. For the record, Forbes is a shell of its former glory. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. This clearly fails. The only reliable sources provide nothing that suggests notability. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Kristy Kiernan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:AUTHOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb45424 (talk • contribs)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Florida. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I have added multiple reviews of multiple books. There is additional information about Kiernan in interviews, while this does not contribute to notability the added information would provide context in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY, as the new citations show notability and there are more sources that can be added to expand the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Covered in profiles from multiple newspapers and with reviews of her books in multiple periodicals, I think sufficient coverage is demonstrated to show notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- AmericaSpeaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article with a promotional history; this version started out simply as a copy of a promotional version deleted as spam, and it hasn't gotten any better. There's no proof or even indication that this was ever a notable organization by our standards, and the lack of references reflects that. Drmies (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete A closed org with no significant coverage in a long time. Clear failure of WP:10YT Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:NCORP and 10YT. By the way, a related AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/California_Speaks Graywalls (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Since its closure in 2014, there has not been a single reliable source covering the organization. It fails WP:NCORP's inclusion criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant standard is WP:ORG as it was a nonprofit, and there are many reliable sources covering the organization since its closure in 2014 cited within the article per my comments below. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
*Delete per nom. and others. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Sal2100 (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done. See below, !vote changed to "keep". Thanks for pinging me. Sal2100 (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sal2100: Request reconsideration in light of the below. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:HEY. The article about this nonpartisan non-profit organization has now gone through a complete WP:TNT, with all the promotional, unsourced content removed. (Drmies and Graywalls rightly got the ball rolling with removing content that should have been removed years ago.) There are numerous articles covering AmericaSpeaks in independent, reliable secondary sources including academic journal articles and books, demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED interest over time. Among the most in-depth analysis is Francesca Polletta's chapter, "Publics, Partners, and the Ties That Bind" which appeared in Inventing Ties That Bind, a book published by the University of Chicago Press in 2020 and published by Chicago Scholarship Online in 2021. Another article is "Balancing the Books: Analyzing the Impact of a Federal Budget Deliberative Simulation on Student Learning and Opinion" by Dena Levy and Susan Orr, which was published in the Journal of Political Science Education in 2014. Another is the chapter "A Political Life Transformed" by John Gastil and Katherine R. Knobloch, which appeared in their book Hope for Democracy: How Citizens Can Bring Reason Back Into Politics, which was published by Oxford University Press in 2020. (All articles are accessible via Wikipedia Library or its partner publishers.) There are many other sources now cited in the article besides. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Cielquiparle and WP:HEY. With recent modifications, the article now passes WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep Although at the time of the nom it didn't look very promising but rn I can vouch for it to be kept. X (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Heights and weights of US presidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and failure to meet WP:LISTN. In addition, we also already have Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 21:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States: This list is already included as part of the aforementioned article. Weight isn't a notable detail about these people, either. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- How are US presidential nicknames trivial? They are often important aspects of the presidents campaigning, or important aspects of how the presidents are viewed in popular culture. Furthermore, there being a similar article is a valid cause for deletion, since such articles serve as a Redundant Fork. Samoht27 (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I simply created the list because I was unable to find any website that allowed me to compare my self to a US president. Also if we are arguing that this is trivial then I feel that US presidential nicknames would qualify in that category more than this would. I would also like a specific reason for deletion because I feel that it is currently based off of their being a similar article (Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States). I think this article is a valuable supplement as the Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States article dives deep into comparison of heights amongst candidates this article over the broader scope of the presidents general body size. Pickup Andropov (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Reviewer here. I wasn't aware of Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States when I accepted the draft, which was my mistake.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Heights of presidents and presidential candidates of the United States, as this list is already part of that article. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 18:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete We already have a list for height and the weight is a trivial aspect. The weight being included in the title makes it a bad redirect to a list of only heights, so just delete it. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete for the reasons above. Ben Azura (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, I don't think height or weight are notable characteristics of US presidents. JIP | Talk 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as a fork of a list. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Khan Garh Tehsil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviewed during NPP. I think two reasons for the nomination. No indication of notability under GNG or SNG. SNG would be the only possibility and not even the requirements for that are met. More simply, the only reference give does not even mention it and in a search I can't find anything to even confirm that it even exists, not even on Google maps. North8000 (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ✎ 19:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The place exist. See Khangarh, Sindh, this and this--—Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Those (sourceless pages in the Wayback machine) are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Khan Garh and Khangarh are same. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Saqib: Thanks. So I think that that reinforces that it already has an article? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Khan Garh and Khangarh are same. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Those (sourceless pages in the Wayback machine) are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the sources found by Saqib. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- See above. Those are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- but the city and the tehsil are two different things. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Mccapra: ??? I don't understand. Saqib gave sources for Khangarh and said that it's the same thing as this AFD. You said keep based on those sources, but when I said Khangarh already has an article you said that this AFD article is not the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Saqib’s sources verify that Khangarh/Khan Garh is a local government area (tehsil). As a local government area any tehsil is notable. Tehsils may or may not be approximately similar to towns, and the fact that we already have an article on the town doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also have an article on the tehsil. Is what I meant. Mccapra (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Mccapra: ??? I don't understand. Saqib gave sources for Khangarh and said that it's the same thing as this AFD. You said keep based on those sources, but when I said Khangarh already has an article you said that this AFD article is not the same thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- but the city and the tehsil are two different things. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- See above. Those are for Khangarh which already has a Wikipedia article. Khangarh, Sindh North8000 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The article has only one reference which is dead but is archived at the wayback machine. And what's at the wayback machine does not even mention the topic. That said, I'm going to step back and let others decide. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep for the same reason that we have articles on Schenectady County, New York and Schenectady, New York. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- The question isn't whether or not a Tehsil is suitable to have an article. The question is: do we have a suitable source that says that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists? North8000 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- [4] [5] [6] and [7] all easily available from Ghotki District show that Khan Garh or Khangarh is a verifiable tehsil/taluka. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The question isn't whether or not a Tehsil is suitable to have an article. The question is: do we have a suitable source that says that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists? North8000 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Phil Bridger. Local government units at the Tehsil level are routinely kept on Wikipedia even in the absence of GNG level sourcing. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More policy-based discussion is needed. Just because something exists, does not make it notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment To simplify, I'd agree (and already agreed) that a Tehsil meets NGeo should be kept without needing GNG sources. I looked at all of the sources noted, and from what I can see none of them is a wiki-suitable confirms that the TEHSIL of Khan Garh exists. The only reference in the article is to a sources list in the wayback machine which seems to say it doesn't exist. Others are ambiguous, don't say that it is a Tehsil, and seem to be referring to Khangarh, Sindh . Others are to blank sourceless pages in the wayback machine (including the only two cites at the Ghotki District article and even those don't really say that it exists. Can somebody find ONE wp:RS that clearly says that it exists as a Tehsil? And maybe even put it in the article because the article currently the article has ZERO wp:RS sources, and even the one non-RS source that it has (a sourceless page in the wayback machine) doesn't even claim that it exists. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to being deliberately obtuse here, as Eluchil404 in his reply to you above listed sources (I checked the first and the third, which is enough) that confirm that this is a tehsil. If you didn't know that a taluka is the same as a tehsil then just look in your favourite encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please quit the "deliberately" crap. Beyond that, I've done my best here. I'm going to unwatch this and let y'all decide. Anybody please ping me if I may be of assistance. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- KEEP per Phil Bridger. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- KEEP Replaced the existing archived reference that did not mention Khan Garh Tehsil with an archived reference from a Government of Pakistan website that clearly mentions it (page 18 of 38 - Khangarh Taluka). Also added a Dawn newspaper reference mentioning 'Khangarh taluka'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Great work and a huge change. That makes it Keep for me. North8000 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- John Moore (bluegrass musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has no sources and no indication of notability. It was nominated for deletion nearly 20 years ago and has not been improved since it was created in 2005. The subject does not meet any of the guidelines listed in WP:NMUSIC nor WP:NBIO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aneirinn (talk • contribs) 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aneirinn (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. WCQuidditch ✎ 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - It is important to note that the WP:NMUSICIAN requirements have gotten much tougher since 2006, when this article survived an AfD discussion pretty much because the gentleman was visible on the Internet. Meanwhile, the current version of the article could possibly be speedy deleted under WP:A7 because it makes no attempt to say how/if he is notable. At any rate, the gentleman is a perennial sideman and local performer who is surely good at what he does, but he has not received the in-depth media coverage that is necessary here, and is only visible in typical streaming and promotional services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Byron Berline: I searched but could not find in-depth coverage about Moore. It's not an easy search because of his name and he's played at many bluegrass festivals so a lot hot hits to wade through but I did add a couple sources at least for verification. He was in Berline's band California which won International Bluegrass Music Association Instrumental Group of the Year three years in a row and Moore is mentioned in article. He also taught mandolin to Nickel Creek's Chris Thile and Sean Watkins which might qualify for WP:NMUSICOTHER #3 or #5 but I think that's a weak claim. S0091 (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete per my comments below. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I voted to delete above, but if this keeps getting relisted with no further progress then we will probably end up with a pointless "no consensus". Therefore I would support the Redirect suggestion above if nobody else votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. S0091 has made a valiant effort but I don't think this is a good redirect. If you searched for John Moore and were redirected to this article, I think you'd feel more confused than informed. (Sorry, Doomsdayer520, but I think even "no consensus" would be better than this confusing redirect.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- My first choice is still Delete and will I stick with it now that I have some support. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- No backsies @Doomsdayer520. :) Actually, I agree with @Asilvering it's not a great redirect as there is no content to preserve in the event sources become available and a weak target so flipping my vote to delete. S0091 (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- My first choice is still Delete and will I stick with it now that I have some support. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Extinction Level Event (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dubious dabpage that implies that a plot point in Deep Impact is the primary topic for this phrase. Recommend a primary redirect to Extinction Level Event: The Final World Front; the DIFFCAPS Extinction level event already redirects to Extinction event. 162 etc. (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 22. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete No other topics are apparent; one item is possily a WP:PTM. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - we don't need dabs of dabs. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Beni Ebeid SC. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Beni Ebeid Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing much which could be included however the sources may not be in English. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No located sources.
- JayCubby please edit my user page! Talk 15:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as ATD. Definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Sport of athletics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Beni Ebeid, the town it's in. The stadium isn't owned by the football club, they just operate there. The football club Beni Ebeid SC also needs to be merged into the town article. As it doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Beni Ebeid SC as above; not even mentioned at the town article. GiantSnowman 19:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I sent Beni Ebeid SC to AfD, so now it's an inappropriate target! And it is mentioned in the town article now! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - I think it needs fixing rather than deletion! Similar to what I've done to Beni Ebeid SC, I'll update this article one with new content in the nearest possible time. Ben5218 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've updated the article and added references. It's still a stub, but I think that's enough to keep it. Thoughts, everyone? @GiantSnowman, @Govvy, @Mccapra, @JayCubby.
- Ben5218 (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment thanks for finding these Ben5218 but a Facebook post and two pieces of coverage saying the name of the stadium is changing don’t make it notable. I still think a merge and redirect to either the club or the town is best. Mccapra (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. GiantSnowman 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- That Facebook post contains a video discussing the stadium's and club's history, though, and only one reference covers the name change, not two. Since my last comment here, another four references were added (I can find and add more easily, if needed), and I also added more content. This topic definitely passes WP:GNG now, in my opinion. Ben5218 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep per the sources currently in the article. Decent enough coverage about an Egyptian topic. Geschichte (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Sources are one line mentions or unreliable. And I think I've been cyber attacked by one of the sources I clicked on.Tamsier (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Tamsier All existing sources are certainly not unreliable and provide sufficient or enough information on the points mentioned in the article. I'm not sure which link might cause some kind of "cyberattacks", but if you tell me which one is it, I can easily replace it with another reference. Ben5218 (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Shauna Vollmer King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 16:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. A BEFORE search turns up no sources that pass GNG.Dclemens1971 (talk)
- Keep. This person is notable. Upon seeing a few sources like The Denver Post, one of the major news publishers. You can see a full detailed paragraph is covered.
"Shauna King, president of International Medical Relief, said about 20 people will go on this mission, including doctors, nurses, medical students, a disaster and refugee trained psychologist and Kelly. Several more have applied, King said, such as oral surgeons and other medical providers.
International Medical Relief dispatched a crew to Lesvos over a month ago to organize lodgings, a clinic station, transportation and line up interpreters.
Roughly 1,500 refugees arrive in Lesvos on overloaded boats on a daily basis, King said, and most are there temporarily."Larvatiled (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- King is referenced in a single paragraph of a much longer local human-interest story (here's the link; actually published in the weekly local Broomfield Enterprise, a sub-brand of the Post but not the Post itself) focused on a local resident going on an International Medical Relief trip. All it says about King is that she is president of IMF; it quotes her speaking to other topics but contains no additional details that would help us know why she is notable. It is by definition a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and thus not appropriate to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- People don't become notable on the basis of sources in which they're speaking or writing about other things, they become notable on the basis of sources in which they're the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. That is, not sources which quote her statement on a mission: sources in which other people are talking about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. I found more information on her uncle (a Catholic priest) than on her in my search. If I cut the middle name I get social media profiles and information on an unrelated Shauna King. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. It appears the nominator now also agrees the given sources are enough to support notability. Whether a Baltimorean with an interest in choir will expand the article or not is unfortunately beyond the remit of AfD. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Baltimore Choral Arts Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs on the page for many years. I see some mentions and directories and possibly even programmes for performances, but I'm not seeing the level of substantial independent reliable sourcing needed to meet the inclusion criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Maryland. JMWt (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep There's plenty of WP:SIGCOV [8] - article needs work but that's not grounds for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok great, please add the strongest sources to the page that show the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- How about you do it instead. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The news sources you've provided are mostly not accessible to me in my country. But you are right that these appear to be SIGCOV looking at the titles of the news articles, but it is a shame nobody has improved it since 2009. JMWt (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- I also don't have a subscription to Baltimore newspapers. This is neither here nor there for whether the article should be deleted. Hopefully an editor from Baltimore will see this conversation and do it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- The news sources you've provided are mostly not accessible to me in my country. But you are right that these appear to be SIGCOV looking at the titles of the news articles, but it is a shame nobody has improved it since 2009. JMWt (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- How about you do it instead. Simonm223 (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ok great, please add the strongest sources to the page that show the notability criteria have been met. JMWt (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 19:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I see enough independent reviews to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cheryl Epple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for WP:NPOL or wp:anybio. Notability is not inherited through marriage. Doesn't make any mention of business accomplishments. Internet search results are sparse. I suggest deletion or move to draft at minimum. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and California. Classicwiki (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Agree that college board member is not a notability-bearing position and the coverage is not significant enough. Reywas92Talk 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because her husband has one — but the article is not demonstrating or properly sourcing that she has any meaningful claim of standalone notability in her own right. There also appears to be a bit of a pattern here, as this was created by the same editor who created Patti Garamendi, which I put up for AFD last week for virtually identical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is determined not by the perceived prestige of a position but by coverage in sources. The article cites coverage in the Long Beach Press-Telegram and the Cerritos College newspaper Talon Marks. There is also coverage in Insurance Journal, the periodical of record of the American Agents Alliance. Another periodical, the Downey Patriot, reports that she is the namesake of a memorial scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even assuming that everything is true, the depth and reliability of the sourcing in questionable. Two local sources do not constitute significant coverage. A board member can be notable; for example, Lewis Powell, Jr. made national headlines as an education board member well before he was appointed to SCOTUS. This is not the situation for this subject. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no significant coverage here - the college newspaper is obviously not independent, and other mentions seem trivial. SportingFlyer T·C 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Care-O-bot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article recreated after deletion discussion ended in delete. Sources have not changed; all available substantial references are press releases. Reconrabbit 18:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Technology. Reconrabbit 18:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, Consensus was reached already, and the differences between that version of the page and this one are minor. Samoht27 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not nearly enough to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Rina Yasutake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviewed during NPP. Combination of wp Notability events and wp:not news. Story of a lady who died and the family kept the body in the house. Two of the three sources were the news reports on it the third says that is is providing the Wikipedia data on the topic. Tagged by others for sources and notability since December. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Should really be an article about the "death of Rina Yasutake". As a person, she isn't notable, the circumstances surrounding her demise seem to be, there are at least 4 BBC stories that pop up in Gnews and some in other news outlets... But I'm not really sure that is enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Even if you changed it to an article about her death, one could argue that all the family members are living persons and are thus entitled to WP:BLP protections. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: No notability for the person, the events surrounding her demise could perhaps be written NPOV, but I don't see enough sourcing to do so. A story could be told I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable death, not heard of it until this AfD.
- SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- List of countries and dependencies by area in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non- notable article with no independent notability on it's own from the main countries and dependences by area list article. A very arbitrary article that just picks a certain moment in history. The year before the fall of communism and as it states in the first sentence "This is a list of countries by area in 1989, providing an overview of the world population before the fall of the Iron Curtain."
There could be plenty of articles about some period in time when borders and land area of nations changed. Such as the end of European colonization in Africa, Asia, or even earlier when Spain lost it's former territories in Latin America.
Also there is no source for what makes this notable on it's own and we have something based on original research. All the notes and references listed are the same or if not the same can be or are used in the original article.
I think this also falls under No stats as this is some random information at a random point in time. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. This seems to be just an idea somebody had, which is explicitly not what Wikipedia is for. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete This is something to look up in the 1989 edition of the World Book, not for a current-day online encyclopedia. Nate • (chatter) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Weird that population is mentioned only in that lead sentence! —Tamfang (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Falls within the existing List of sovereign states in the 1980s, and I don't think we want to expand that article series to individual years and intersect that with area. CMD (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There is also the population equivalent List of countries by population in 1989. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think this could be encyclopaedic, we just need some evidence that it's not WP:OR. The year isn't arbitrary. SportingFlyer T·C 02:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom. There really is not much of a point in including lists of past states and countries by size from arbitrarily-picked years. ArkHyena (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above and WP:TNT. This list is bordering, pardon the pun, on arbitrary and capricious. I can't believe someone went through all this work. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Angeline Gustave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I found a couple of pieces covering her move to France (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but nothing in-depth. #3 is probably the best source. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oliyum Oliyum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Undersourced. Tagged for notability for over a decade. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Would seem to be notable [9], but this area of film isn't my expertise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Have added References clearly notable Tamil song program was amongst the most popular in Tamil Nadu during the Doordarshan era.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in view of the reliable sources references added to the article that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per author request. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Challonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This feels "known but not notable" and fails WP:NCORP. The sources are either non-independent (company website, acquisition announcement) or trivial coverage (examples of tournaments using Challonge). I couldn't find any reviews, or RS writing about comparisons of tournament bracket generators, which we would probably need for an NCORP pass here. ~ A412 talk! 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and Indiana. ~ A412 talk! 16:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per author. It was an oversight by me to move this to main space. I will keep a draft around my user space if anything does comes up. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Dou Kalender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I stumbled across this article. It wasn't very big, but I made it even smaller as it is unsourced. Originally, the only source was the band's website, but that no longer exists (I've removed it). It's an orphan. The image is on no other language project, including the Turkish one. Although it was created over 10 years ago, only one person has it on their watchlist. That said, I know nothing about band singers, especially foreign ones and have not done WP:BEFORE. If editors think it should be kept, this AfD will hopefully serve to improve the facial notability of the subject and the quality of the article itself. Fails WP:SINGER. Bbb23 (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Kpgjhpjm 16:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete I won't spend as much time rewriting my comment, because the WP:XFDVOTE tool did not save my comment. Simply put, I couldn't find reliable independent sources on him. There is possible COI as the creator's sole contribution was this biography for more than a decade. The band could be luckier in terms of notability, but it interestingly lacks an article, and after a quick search, I am unsure if there is sufficient coverage out there. I would, however, support redirecting this to an article about the band if it ever gets created during this discussion. Aintabli (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- John Davis Jr. (presidential candidate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very minor candidate who appeared on two primary ballots. Received less than 4000 votes out of nearly 20 million cast. Lacking significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete None of the content or sources is substantively biographical. Just some dude who took advantage of easy ballot access. Reywas92Talk 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots. Geotubemedia (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. I think a redirect would give an undue indication of notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots as a viable ATD. Per nom. and others, fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. (No prejudice against the recreation of a redirect from the redlink if desired, but delete first as I see no value in holding onto the edit history behind a redirect.) Fringe candidates for president are not "inherently" notable per WP:NPOL just for existing, and have to show some evidence of actually passing WP:GNG on their sourceability — but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with no GNG-worthy sourcing shown whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots, he's a minor candidate known only for being a minor candidate. Samoht27 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots.GobsPint (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2012 Republican Party presidential candidates#Appeared on only two primary ballots: Good ATD as it's a valid search term. Regarding GPL93's point, redirects do not imply that an article ought to exist or that the subject is notable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have Rcats like {{R from child}}. In response to Bearcat's point, the preferred ATD is redirect, not delete, red link, and then create a redirect anew. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Paolo Tasca (professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted and salted as Paolo Tasca * Pppery * it has begun... 14:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Computing, Italy, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete
Delete-- I don't have access to the deleted versions of the article, but since it has been deleted and salted, the level of improvement to notability needs to be higher than typical to keep, and I don't see a WP:PROF pass here that would warrant it. But UCL is a significant university, so I don't want to be too hasty -- salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Moving to weak delete by Mikejisuzu's arguments, but nothing warrants speedy keep by a long shot. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Note that he's actually only an associate professor, not a full professor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep -- Paolo Tasca is much more notable now in 2024, with multiple publications and third-party media references. Right now Tasca has several citations in triple digits. I'd argue that notability itself has increased significantly since the last deletion.
- Given the higher requirement for notability, Tasca should have at least one well-cited multiple author work and others in double digits. From a quick look at Google Scholar, he has 6 works in triple-digit citations and more than 20 with double-digit citations. It looks like he has also grown in notability from a media perspective at least regards to reliable sources such as Euronews, and Project Syndicate. [10] As a result, Tasca clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NPROF notability criteria. Mikejisuzu (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Whoever gave you the idea that that is enough citations in the very highly-cited field of computer science? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, for a start the title is a lie, as he's an associate professor, not a professor. Why do people involved with blockchain always seem to lie like this? Exaggeration is a sign of immaturity, not strength. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment on notability, encyclopedic relevance, academic publications, positions, and so on - In response to Phil's and Necrothesp's comments: Paolo Tasca's work is multidisciplinary, and he also does a lot of work in economics. Please check Google Scholar for his many dozens of academic publications. This is certainly enough to establish basic notability. (Google Scholar)
- And if that's not enough, there's an official UCL profile as well with additional information. (UCL page) UCL is one of the top universities in the UK and Europe, equivalent to an Ivy League-type institution. We can't just delete UCL, or Yale, professors with many dozens of publications unless we can demonstrate solid reasons for why they absolutely don't fit into the scope of this online encyclopedia. This is definitely a serious academic, not some self-promoting "motivational speaker" or "life coach."
- There are plenty of academics out there who used to be non-notable, but have since become much more notable due to their recent extensive publications, research, and presentations. Tasca would certainly be one of them. Simply having a previous deletion or two should not prevent the subject from being permanently barred from eventually having a Wikipedia article even after the subject has eventually attained sufficient notability. I understand that the nominator thinks that Tasca had been deleted before and hence would like to reconsider whether or not the article should remain deleted. Nevertheless, by now, I strongly believe that his notability and encyclopedic relevance has greatly increased, and he is certainly worth including on Wikipedia now. This article is now certainly useful and relevant for encyclopedia readers, which is what Wikipedia is meant for.
- I would also really like to see more experienced users vote on this issue, particularly @Cunard: and others.
- As for Tasca being an "associate professor"? I'm not sure who created the page and why they decided on "(professor)", but it certainly seems fair enough to me. The article creator didn't try to put "(full professor)." A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor. Thus, "(professor)" is a fair an accurate description, and I think it's unfair to call out the article creator for inaccurately describing the subject and picking on whether Tasca is a full or associate professor.
- I hope that I have laid out a strong case for why Paolo Tasca should be a strong keep and speedy keep. Mikejisuzu (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Associate and assistant professors are types of non-professor, not of professor. "Full professor" is an American term, but the subject has no connection with America. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
A professor is a professor, whether he or she is an full, associate, assistant, or adjunct professor.
No they're not. In the UK, these people used to be (and in many universities are still) called lecturers, senior lecturers and readers, not professors. An associate or assistant professor who called themselves or insisted on being addressed as "professor" would still be looked on askance, because they have no right to that title. The use of "professor" as a synonym for "academic" is an Americanism, pure and simple. Elsewhere, the unqualified "professor" only refers to someone who holds a chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that
salting seems to me to be primarily based on a "wasting the community's time" basis and not on a "this person couldn't possibly be notable" one
; this certainly looks like someone who could become notable under WP:NPROF. But I agree that citations are not high, given his discipline. Note also that our article contains false claims; he is not the author of The FinTech Book or Banking Beyond Banks and Money. Both books are edited collections. (He is not one of the editors of the former, either.) -- asilvering (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC) - Delete The citation profile doesn't stand out (any way you slice his career, it's in high-citation-rate areas), and no other grounds for notability are available. Overriding the decision to salt a page would require a much stronger case than can be made here. XOR'easter (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The issues raised in the debate (promo and such) can be addressed by careful editing. Randykitty (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Zoran Kalabić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is written in a blattantly promo way WP:PROMO. While there are some resources, there is a problem of WP:SNG, since most available resources are very promo-like, and there is no secondary and reliable coverage. After an online research, most available resources lack of independency and are written in a blatant way to promote this person, and most of these resources in a similar way are presented in his website: https://zorankalabic.com/biography/. It should be noted that there is a weird editing history, since the main editor created almost entirely a few months ago both the English and Serbian Wikipedia articles of this person, having a very minimal presence in editing other articles of Serbian people. Lately, the templates with notability issues were removed without any valid explanation, and the photos that are blatantly promo and were initially removed, were restored. Apart from notability issues with lack of reliable and independent resources, there may be a strong problem of WP:COI. Chiserc (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Serbia. Chiserc (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep this is quite strange request here. Article is not promo, as there is nothing in it to make it like that. Subject is notable and i already explained that i have seen this person on television receiving highest medal of Republic of Serbia after some large donation to the hospital, and wanted to create article as it was incredible for me the person of such importance does not have article on Wikipedia. Some parts of the article were edited and fixed by other editors that actually wanted to contribute instead of this user who only insisted to tag the article and inform others to delete it, without actually working on article. That is normal way of working on article. Notability is without questions no problem at all, many sources are top level independent news agencies of the world so nominator also misrepresented sources quality. Photos were not deleted because they were promo, that is another blatant lie by nominator but because it took some time to confirm original ownership of them by website where i found them. When that was done they were restored as in many other articles. In the end article history shows only good proper editors who are actually trying to make article of this notable person better, and nominations without any proper Wikipedia work which fails good faith guideline, making false accusations about original author of the article. Also, templates with notability issues are not intended to indefinitely tag the articles, but to make explanation that further work is needed. Bit if none is actually trying to fix the article and tags are standing there for weeks without any further comment on talk page or edit, wiki guidelines allow them to be removed. You are not allowed just to restore them and never to point in detail what do you find problematic with this article. I feel that I should protect the article I wanted to create but not because I have COI, i dont, but because this person received highest awards by several countries and donated to many causes, which make it more then valuable and notable addition to Wiki. It baffles me is there anything else behind this request as most of the things article is nominated for are actually misrepresented, also having in mind nominator agenda to delete it for quite some time. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete no significant coverage from reliable sources Good day—RetroCosmos talk 19:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:RetroCosmos, Most important national public news services of European countries are very much reliable sources. Talking like Radio television of Serbia for example, there isn't anything more important and reliable than that. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Sources that appear to be should not be acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability Good day—RetroCosmos talk 21:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- User:RetroCosmos, Most important national public news services of European countries are very much reliable sources. Talking like Radio television of Serbia for example, there isn't anything more important and reliable than that. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Delete Initial reaction is Delete. Article is a gushing account of this subject. Definitely MOS:PEACOCK. In conjunction with the simultaneous creation of English and Serbian articles, and a block of photos going up on Commons (lifted straight off subject's own website, with release emailed to VRT by the subject - WP:COI much?), this has the feeling of a PR job. Also the fact that the Wikidata Description was "one of the most successful Serbian businessmen in the diaspora" instead of a more appropriate "Serbian businessman". HOWEVER, this is only a Weak Delete. There might be a case to keep given that there appears to be a legit and (minorly) notable award in the Order of Karađorđe's Star. I'm mindful of WP:Globalise - I would not expect a lot of coverage in English language media and a lack of a profile in the BBC or NYT does not imply a lack of notability! Coverage in Serbian or German would also be acceptable. In that case though, this article needs an end-to-end rewrite to encyclopaedic style (WP:MOS). About 30% of it needs to go, and the rest needs to be backed up by independent cites, not the subject's personal website.Hemmers (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemmers is there a way to ask you to change your mind to week keep? I will be more then willing to follow your guidelines and to make article better, but he is really notable in more than a few countries following his donations and support. I find out about him over news following his donation of equipment to children's hospital, and it was incredible to me that such a person does not have Wikipedia article. There isn't anything of those things you mentioned. I was the one who took the photos from website because I found them there, and wanted to make article better as other articles look better with images. There are many important news services publishing about him, including central national ones like Radio Television of Serbia. Would be more then interested in fixing the article, even if it would be smaller, but i cannot understand why would we delete notable subject just because some of the content is not ok. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. wikidata description was the first sentence of the article, but that was deleted after other users explained it to me that we cannot use "big words" in articles. I didnt know that, and that's why it was like that. Please assume good faith, i didn't mean anything bad, and its not promotion, i just wanted to create nice article for someone who created many good things for many countries. That is my only motivation. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- The difficulty is that I have searched for sources using google.at, google.rs and google.sr in an attempt to find additional coverage. Each search (for both Zoran Kalabić and Зоран Калабић) returns very few results, at the top of which are these wikipedia articles and the subject's personal website and social media.
- Whilst he does have the Order, this is not itself enough to establish notability. There are lots of people who do a great deal of philanthropic work, appear in local media and even get an MBE (in the UK). But they don't all get an article. WP requires sustained and substantial coverage which I am struggling to see.
- I am open to the idea that there is coverage which has not been indexed by google (because their coverage of non-English material is often flaky, particularly for Cyrillic and other non-Latin scripts), and that is why I am wary of deleting articles for subjects covered by those languages simply because Google does not trivially surface a load of English-language sources. There are undoubtedly many notable Serbs, Kenyans, Indonesians and Malay who are omitted from Wikipedia because native-English speakers are notoriously bad at foreign languages.
- Nonetheless, you need to bring those sources to bear, because I am increasingly unsure that they exist. A mention in RTS is not notable (everyone who receives an MBE is listed in The Times, but that does not automatically earn them an article). Likewise several of the sources are basically press releases or interviews - not substantial independent coverage.Hemmers (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, there are many more sources in Serbian I didn't included in the article, but I will list you here and add an article more if that will help, now I understand it will. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Hemmers is there a way to ask you to change your mind to week keep? I will be more then willing to follow your guidelines and to make article better, but he is really notable in more than a few countries following his donations and support. I find out about him over news following his donation of equipment to children's hospital, and it was incredible to me that such a person does not have Wikipedia article. There isn't anything of those things you mentioned. I was the one who took the photos from website because I found them there, and wanted to make article better as other articles look better with images. There are many important news services publishing about him, including central national ones like Radio Television of Serbia. Would be more then interested in fixing the article, even if it would be smaller, but i cannot understand why would we delete notable subject just because some of the content is not ok. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I don't understand why this article is nominated for deletion. It is quite relevant; this person is a well-known public figure. The article has reliable sources, and it is generally well written; there is no need to delete it. If someone is missing something, they can add or edit it.Bandzimir (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
it is generally well written
"generally" is doing quite a bit of heavy lifting there Good day—RetroCosmos talk 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I tend to agree with Hemmers that the only minor and possible aspect that may imply some notability is the Order of Karađorđe's Star. However, I have checked that these state awards and orders have been given by President of Serbia to many people, and, only during the last very few years, hundreds of institutions and people have taken this or even a higher state order - check the website: https://www.predsednik.rs/predsednik/ukazi-o-odlikovanjima. For this reason, while this award can indeed establish some notability, I see that this one fact cannot validate the notability of WP:ANYBIO for a well-known and significant award or honor, especially if the article continues to be a WP:SOAPBOX. Chiserc (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but this is again very misleading I don't understand why are you doing this. The list you sent is a general list of all state awards that have been given by president, every single metal and awarded that was given throughout the years. That does not imply that quantity diminished quality, as it is one more lie in this nomination. Only 10 was given for entire year for entire country. So this award recived by this person is by far something important as it is for other countries. Please stop with this anti propaganda. Article is NOT the soap, and you have never pointed anything that is wrong with the article but you just keep repeating and tagging it without any proper explanation this is actually disruptive editing. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Article should stay since there is sufficient evidence that he is a public figure, but it should be reduced to appropriate size. For example, two photos from ERA events are absolutely not needed. One is more than enough. Parts of some sentences like "and is currently preparing for a doctorate" (Why is this relevant?) and "After a series of successful business years" (What's the evidence?) really make this article look like a PR project. Whoever wrote this should take care of it. But I still think that article should not be deleted. Tresnjevo (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your productive comments, i will fix and delete all of those great guidelines you pointed out. This means a lot to me to understand editing style, thank you. --Pane.Vino.Wiki (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I believe this meets WP:ANYBIO#1, for Order of Karađorđe's Star. I don't agree that
this one fact cannot validate the notability of WP:ANYBIO for a well-known and significant award or honor, especially if the article continues to be a WP:SOAPBOX
; notability is a property of the subject, not the article. Furthermore, I agree with Pane.Vino.Wiki that this has been a disruptive, not a collaborative process. No one should be saying things likeif the main author does not fix these issues, I will aggressively delete the offending texts.
-- asilvering (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Centre for India & Global Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn. No independent sources - Altenmann >talk 15:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, India, and England. WCQuidditch ✎ 17:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 14:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- First Battle of Lahore (1759) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sources provided on the page show no mention for a battle in "August 1759", the sources only show that Ahmad Shah even began his campaign in September 1759, reaching Lahore and then taking it in November. [11] Noorullah (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
'''[[User:CanonNi]]'''
(talk|contribs) 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) - Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ✎ 13:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unless proper sourcing is found. The sourcing on Urdu wiki isn’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sigh, not another one of these. We might have to look into the others at Battle of Lahore (disambiguation), too. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:HEY.
"Sabaji maintained his position with great valour and strength, inflicted a crushing defeat upon Jahan Khan, who was severely wounded and lost his son in the action. Jahan Khan’s return to Peshawar in discomfiture so roused the fury of the Shah."
Excerpts from New history of the Marathas vol 1. p-408"Dattaji Sindhia progressed slowly through Malwa. He appointed Sabaji Sindhia to occupy Lahore ( March, 1759 ). The Sikhs did not check the Marathas, but co-operated with them in driving away the Afghans under Jahan Khan across the Indus. Sabaji’s forces penetrated as far as Peshawar."
Excerpts from A Study Of Eighteenth Century India Vol. 1. p-342
- Additional comments- Renaming the article to the Capture of Lahore or even the Maratha occupation of Lahore (per sources) would be better. Though these sources are enough for keeping this article still additional sources would be appreciated.
- Sudsahab (talk) 10:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- There doesn't even seem to be a battle at all.
- Per Sarkar, it states that the Afghans had evacuated Lahore, meaning that there was no "battle" for the city in April 1758. [12] Also corroborated by Hari Ram Gupta: [13]
- The Afghans returned in October 1759 and re-occupied Lahore. [14]
- There's no mention of a battle in August 1759 whatsoever.
- Jahan Khan's battle per this source: [15] Doesn't seem to be mentioned at Lahore at all, nor do the sources you've shown imply this, but rather is "Thereafter the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus, and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel (Schinde) reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of Sikh fighters, who had made common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded."
- So again, this shows this was not a battle at Lahore. Noorullah (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- [16] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's why I proposed renaming this article, either it should be Jahan Khan invasion of Rohtas or Battle of Rohtas. Coming to Sarkar's reliability which is questionable. Also see WP:RAJ, we can't rely on him as long as we have better sources for the notability of the Battle of Lahore (Battle of Rohtas?).
- You do realise [this|https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.98175/page/n361/mode/2up] work of Hari Ram Gupta (published in 1944) is relatively older than his cited work in the article Marathas and Panipat. (published in 1961)? It would be obvious that older sources might not contain more information around this certain event, this is WP:AGE MATTERS.
- In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us:
Jahan Khan rushed to Peshawar, captured Attock, and then advanced towards Rohtas. Sabaji sought help from the Sikhs. The united forces marched against Jahan Khan, whom they encountered on the other side of the Jehlam. In a fierce engagement the Afghan general suffered heavily. He lost his son and a large number of troops, himself receiving several wounds
- [17] p-260, It also propounds:
Thereafter, the invaders overran Attock, then crossed the Indus and threatened the historic fort of Rohtas on the left bank of the Jhelum. By that time, Sabaji Patel reached the place with fresh troops and a large number of the Sikh fighters, who had made a common cause with him against the Afghan infiltrators. The Afghans were defeated by the combined forces of the Marathas and the Sikhs in a pitched battle, in which Jahan Khan lost his son and was himself also wounded.
Note Rohtas,Pitched battle and fierce engagement in both of the quotations.
- In Marathas and Panipat. p-101 tells us:
- Sudsahab (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Alright Sudsahab (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sudsahab, if it isn't part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, you should fix the infobox, since that's what it says. -- asilvering (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have already quoted the sources which discussed it thoroughly. And no it's not part of Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, not to be confused with Capture of Lahore which occurred in 1758 by Raghunath Rao. If merging is an option then I'd suggest merging it to Afghan-Maratha War. But my vote is still keep until someone gives more inputs. Sudsahab (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- But why have a separate article for this at all? It doesn't seem that the sources are discussing it in that way. They're describing it as part of an overall campaign. That tells me the best place for this information is somewhere like Northern Campaign of Raghunath Rao, or whichever other article might fit better. -- asilvering (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- [16] Does not show a battle at Lahore, but mentions Jahan Khan's defeat at an undisclosed location, and only later talks about how Ahmad Shah re-occupied Lahore (presumably in his 1759 October campaign). Noorullah (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:HEY and to allow further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'll just add that the "WP:HEY" was Sudsahab referring to their own edits to the article (seems a bit rich to say this about yourself?), and they have since been blocked as a sockpuppet. So no one is actually arguing this meets the WP:HEY standard. -- asilvering (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Rox De Luca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Regrettably, I'm not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:NARTIST. I hope to be proved wrong! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Arts, Visual arts, Italy, and Australia. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ) 10:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, there seem to be enough reputable sources on the page for notability. Will watch this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, please let me know what is missing to make notability.louibu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment, considerable work has been done on this page since the AfD was posted. Can the discussion be closed and the notice removed? Louibu (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute
significant critical attention
, nor is the subject's workrepresented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums
, which seem the two easiest criteria for the subject to pass. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ) 08:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC) - The discussion will run at least seven days. There is no reason present for a speedy close in either direction. Star Mississippi 13:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- What are these notable galleries, and where is the evidence? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ) 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, evidence of the subject's work represented within permanent collections of several notable galleries has been added. Carolinephillips (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still not seeing evidence that the subject passes WP:NARTIST, so I won't be withdrawing the nomination. In particular, in my reading, the presented sources don't seem enough to constitute
Source | Independent? | Reliable? | Significant coverage? | Count source toward GNG? |
---|---|---|---|---|
This is a reupload on the subject's website of a blogspot article (WP:SELFPUBLISH). | See WP:SELFPUBLISH. | ✘ No | ||
This is the artist's CV. | See WP:ABOUTSELF. | See WP:ABOUTSELF. | ✘ No | |
This is a travel guide website that ran an article on the artist. | Yes | |||
Doesn't mention the subject; this is just the link to a painting by the subject's mother. | ✘ No | |||
This is a residency report from the subject itself on a blog. | See WP:ABOUTSELF. | See WP:ABOUTSELF. | ✘ No | |
~ This is a fairly short mention; the subject is not the main focus of the article, but is quoted, with some commentary on their work. | ~ Partial | |||
Millner, Jacqueline; Moore, Catriona (2022). Contemporary art and feminism. New York: Routledge. p. 193. |
Offline source, accepting in good faith: according to the block quotation, this is a paragraph mention in the book. | Yes | ||
Brennan, Anne (1 December 1997). "Beyond reason: Jo Darbyshire and Rox De Luca". Eyeline. 35: 22–24. |
Offline source, accepting in good faith, though the title suggests this may be an interview. | Yes | ||
A paragraph mention on the subject and their work. | Yes | |||
Allatson, Paul (1996). "Men and Mettle". Artlink. 16 (1): 24–26. |
Offline source, accepting in good faith. | Yes | ||
Very short mention of the subject and one of their works. | Yes | |||
This is a project with which the artist is associated. | Name doesn't even feature in the source. | ✘ No | ||
Very short, one-sentence mention of the subject and one of their works, which to me constitutes a trivial mention. | ✘ No | |||
Just the subject's name is mentioned. | ✘ No | |||
Just the subject's name is mentioned. | ✘ No | |||
This is her biography as an artist-in-residence, almost certainly written by the subject. | See WP:ABOUTSELF. | ✘ No | ||
Just the subject's name is mentioned. | ✘ No | |||
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}. |
- Your mileage may vary, but to me, these sources, assessed together, do not demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. In particular, we have only one "chunky" piece that focuses on the artist, while the rest are either borderline trivial mentions or the artist and their work are discussed, in no more than a paragraph, as a subtopic. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ) 10:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, the source analysis shows that sufficient sources have been obtained to reach GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Keep IMO WP:BASIC is marginally met. X (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Patricio Vidal (Chilean footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any mention of this guy anywhere. He seems to have been a bit player on the teams he played. WP:GNG fails. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete unless the resident expert on Chilean football, @ImSnot, knows of any sources, any accomplishments, anytihng useful. Geschichte (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Chile. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bosaso FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Since, per WP:NTEAM, teams and clubs have to demonstrate WP:GNG for a standalone article, then this fails WP:GNG as there's nothing to establish notability. Pieces from Hoorse Media ([18], [19]) can not be considered independent as they sponsor the club. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Somalia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep It does seem slightly odd to discount sources from what appears to be a reliable media source for the region because they support the club given the region, but there's other sources out there which can be used to improve the article such as [20] and mentions in [21] and [22]. Another problem here is most of this part of the world happens on Facebook. SportingFlyer T·C 23:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bosaso FC is an existing local sports club in Somalia with sponsorship of Horseed Media Group. Page deserves not to delate as editor from Somalia club is existing Muscab30 (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Let me recommend we should not delete this page. Club is an existing local sport club in Somalia. Muscab30 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep There are reliable sources here, as sponsorships don't detract from journalistic independence. Indeed, sponsorship adds to the team's notability. The team is simply not mainstream or well covered. This feels like a further example of unconscious WP:BIAS discounting teams, players, etc. from places like Somalia. Anwegmann (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Strong keep as per discussion the source of the reference used other reliable sources from different pages. Muscab30 (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, the football club exists, but the only (single) news source about the club is by the news outlet that sponsors the club. WP:GNG needs multiple, independent reliable sources that are more than just passing mentions (source 4 doesn't mention the club at all). Sionk (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect is not the only single news source there is different source used check the page or are related and are original language is Somali language since the team is in SOMALIA Muscab30 (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Answer for the sorce 4 the source four is related tgis topic is about Puntland the state responsible the team area is the federal member state of Somalia responsible managing snd regulating football in the area of Bosaso FC. Bosaso FC operates under Puntland. Muscab30 (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- That is incorrect - source 4 clearly states
Bosaso FC is owned by Bosaso City- the commercial town of Puntland in Bari region
. There's enough here for a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 00:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia per nom. Fails GNG due to limited independent SIGCOV. Frank Anchor 04:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 13:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: : Sorry, after checking the good sources, it may be eligible for deletion or redirectionGQO (talk) 9:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia per WP:ATD. Fails WP:SIGCOV as the news coverage is from a media outlet that sponsors the club, which clearly makes the coverage not independent.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis (it need not be formal) would be helpful. Also, User:Muscab30, please strike one of your bolded "votes" as I'm not sure which one reflects your current opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- There are four sources in the article - one from the UN, which isn't great; one from Puntlandes, which is coverage of the league, but also includes a few sentences specifically on the club which can be used to expand the article, and is similar the type of coverage I look for when creating articles on clubs; a DW article which doesn't specifically mention the club; and a cable TV interview on Youtube, which would generally be considered unreliable but is clearly a cable TV network putting up one of their broadcasts. In the AfD, there are two good articles from the newspaper which sponsors the team which don't appear to be promotional in any way; a Warsom article about a friendly Bosaso played in that the president of Puntland attended, which is excellent coverage; a reference in a scholarly article which can be used in the article to describe who owns the team, but is not GNG-qualifying; and a fixture list for the league which features an alternate spelling of the team. Between the sponsoring newspaper, the Puntlandes article, and the Warsom article, it's a pass in my opinion, but if we're going to be strict and say that the sponsoring newspaper doesn't count, it becomes more marginal. As I've already noted, most of the media coverage for Puntland actually happens on Facebook, so if we're going to go letter of the law GNG it's more likely to be redirected, but if we go spirit of GNG and say that we need reliable sources which show that the club has been written about by secondary sources, it's a keep. I'm still strongly advocating for this to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: most of news in Somalia are in Facebook so it's very limited to find websites written about such areas, so I believe it's unfair to mark this article "deletion" dealing contextual argument will improve diverse approach of dealing such situations. The only thing that you believed in horseedmedia media is the sponsor of the this club and can't be referred to source, first Horseed Media is well-known and respected Media station in Somalia with reliable information in Somalia context, secondly, we used other source to follow your directives and rules mentioned above as editor, contributor and creator of this article I believe it's completely appropriate rules and regulations of Wikipedia and should be accepted. Muscab30 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Longer note below, it broke the template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Closing admin note, I had closed this as
The result was redirect to List of football clubs in Somalia as a viable ATD. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient independence. This isn't as close as it looks with a keep noting the team is neither mainstream nor well covered, which negates the !vote
which I still believe to be a correct read. @SportingFlyer: raised some good points at my Talk about the points they'd raised above and I offered to relist in lieu of DRV. Star Mississippi 13:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC) - Note about the new close: At a glance, views seem to be all over the place. However, with only two keep !votes, consensus is clearly against keeping this article. That leaves delete or redirect, slightly favoring redirect. When in doubt between those two, it seems prudent to go with the least destructive option. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdraw per WP:HEY. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Steve Williams (rugby union, born 1970) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not finding enough here to meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG, coverage seems to only be routine match announcements. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, and Wales. Primefac (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep A 28-match international career usually brings coverage, and there is sourcing in this, this and others. With the majority of his career played when online sourcing was limited, it's likely there will be more offline. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. As said above, probably more offline, but there’s some content that can be used to expand beyond stub article.RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Just to follow up, added significant number of sources from his playing and coaching career. Should be enough to meet notability requirements.
- RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Dyras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability, nothing pops up in a WP:BEFORE in English and German. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Germany, and Poland. Broc (talk) 12:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Florida. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The Dyras website exists and has a link to a Dyras-branded catalogue from a company named Quad Star. I can't find any evidence of notability, though. The company was also known as The Global Electric Factory, but I can't find much related to that name. I can't reach http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ , but here is an archive of the site from 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210121140018/http://www.theglobalelectricfactory.com/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Mark Willis (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet Notability for WP:Politician (never an elected State/Federal representative), nor more broadly for WP:BIO. He appears to have been involved in a brief internal spat within the Republican Party as a member of a State Republican Committee, which garnered a handful of reportage at the time, but probably falls under WP:NSUSTAINED. In particular, the initial version of the article pretty much read as a campaign document for his run at RNC Chair and included a great deal of unverified personal bio - probably created by the subject or someone closely associated with him. This has been edited out over time for a more Neutral POV and encyclopaedic style, but there's no evidence of notability outside of that brief party-internal politicking. It does not appear that there's anything worth merging (or redirecting) to another article unless the objections to the 2012 RNC Rule Changes were themselves considered notable enough for an article.Hemmers (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hemmers (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, California, Maine, Maryland, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ✎ 13:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete not even technically a politician, simply a non notable political challenger. SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Reads like a resume, skims the surface of his work background, with no substance about any of it. Not notable anything. Sourcing is all political focus.— Maile (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was draftify. ✗plicit 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- 2024–25 Malaysia A3 Community League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, seasonal article for a fully-amateur 4th division of Malaysian football, no indication of any significant coverage outside of primary sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the sources in the article already pass WP:GNG after translation. The problem is the competition hasn't started yet, so there's not any better sources to find on the competition itself. SportingFlyer T·C 02:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Then it needs to be drafted first, this article is basically one huge "this section is empty" and nothing else, there is literally no content in the article. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify - the 'article' has no meaningful content Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- This tournament not start yet, schedule in May. I will find reliable source to update in this article. FM Malaysia (talk) 03:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify. I don't see any reason to delete this, since the work that's already been done here will simply need to be recreated as we get closer to the event. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Consort Chen Farong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No refs on the page for many years. Not seeing useful refs but they may exist in other languages. At present there are various claims on the page which should be removed per WP:V JMWt (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. JMWt (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Having written this a long time ago, I agree that it could and should be sourced better. However, as the mother of an emperor of a large state, she is inherently notable. --Nlu (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Nlu, any chance you remember what sources you used to write it? -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Deletereluctantly. I don't see the sources. There's a paragraph in the Southern History [23] that discusses her. But secondary sources in English seem to be absent, and those in Chinese appear (I'm skimming here) to mainly be from Chinese Wikipedia or Baidu Baike or scrapes of those articles, or to be brief mentions in articles on her son. Oblivy (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)- (Redacted) 223.204.68.123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've redacted the comment. Thank you for your research on the sources below and for improving the article. These sources were difficult to find since it required four searches (the subject's two Chinese names and in the traditional and simplified Chinese representations of those names). It is not surprising that editors did not find sources. Oblivy does lots of good searches for sources for AfDs and is one of AfD's more thoughtful participants. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- (Redacted) 223.204.68.123 (talk) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
SourcesPeople are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
- Chen, Huaxin 陈华新 (1992). 中国历代后妃大观 [A Grand View of Chinese Concubines Through the Ages] (in Chinese). Shenzhen: Shenzhen Publishing House . p. 168. ISBN 9787805424675. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "陈法容发生性关系,于 469 年(宋明帝泰始五年)生了皇三子刘准(后来的宋顺帝) , 471 年封刘准为安成王,晋陈法容为昭华。 472 年明帝死,陈昭华为安成王太妃。 477 年刘准即位为宋顺帝,陈氏为皇太妃。 479 年顺帝禅位,萧道成称帝,建立齐朝,宋亡。陈法容被废去皇太妃称号。她大概死于齐朝初年。"
From Google Translate: "Chen Farong had sexual relations and gave birth to the third son of the emperor Liu Zhun (later Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty) in 469 (the fifth year of Taishi reign of Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty). In 471, Liu Zhun was granted the title of King Ancheng, and Chen Farong of the Jin Dynasty was granted the title of Zhaohua. When Emperor Ming died in 472, Chen Zhaohua became Princess Ancheng. In 477, Liu Zhun ascended the throne as Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty, and Chen became the imperial concubine. In 479, Emperor Shun ascended the throne, Xiao Daocheng proclaimed himself emperor, established the Qi Dynasty, and the Song Dynasty fell. Chen Farong was deprived of the title of Crown Princess. She probably died in the early years of the Qi Dynasty."
- 皇后妃嫔传 [The Queen's Concubines] (in Chinese). Hainan: Hainan Publishing House . 1994. pp. 126–127. ISBN 9787805907451. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.
The book notes on page 126: "陈法容,生卒年不详,宋明帝的昭华。... 明帝的陈昭华名叫法容。"
From Google Translate: "Chen Farong, whose birth and death dates are unknown, was born in Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. ... Emperor Ming's Chen Zhaohua was named Farong."
The book notes on page 127: "顺帝就是桂阳王刘休范的儿子,以陈昭华为母亲。明帝去世后,陈昭华被拜为安成王太妃。顺帝即位,进封陈昭华为皇太妃。顺帝将皇帝位禅让后,陈昭华被取消了皇太妃的称号。(赵元译)【原文】明帝陈昭华讳法容,丹阳建康人也。"
From Google Translate: "Emperor Shun was the son of King Liu Xiufan of Guiyang, and his mother was Chen Zhaohua. After the death of Emperor Ming, Chen Zhaohua was worshiped as Princess Ancheng. Emperor Shun ascended the throne and granted Chen Zhaohua the title of Crown Princess. After Emperor Shun abdicated the throne, Chen Zhaohua was revoked from the title of Crown Princess. (Translated by Zhao Yuan) [Original text] Chen Zhaohua, Emperor Ming, was a native of Jiankang in Danyang."
- Dan, Bo 淡泊 (2006). 中华万姓谱 [Genealogy of Chinese Surnames] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Archives Publishing House . p. 1438. ISBN 9787801666819. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "陈法容( ? ~ ? ) ,女,南朝宋丹阳建康人。宋明帝昭华。宋顺帝即为陈法容所抚养。宋顺帝即位,进为皇太妃。"
From Google Translate: "Chen Farong (? ~ ?), female, was born in Jiankang, Danyang, Southern Song Dynasty. Zhaohua, Emperor Ming of the Song Dynasty. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty was raised by Chen Farong. Emperor Shun of the Song Dynasty ascended the throne and became the imperial concubine."
- Tang, Xiejun 唐燮军 (2007). 六朝吴兴沈氏及其宗族文化探究 [Research on the Shen Family and Their Clan Culture in Wuxing During the Six Dynasties] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Social Sciences Press. p. 371. ISBN 9787500465034. Retrieved 2024-04-29 – via Google Books.
The book notes: "考中華書局點校本《宋書·后妃·明帝陳昭華傳》云"
From Google Translate: "According to the "Book of Song·Concubine·Ming Emperor Chen Zhaohua Biography" compiled by Zhonghua Book Company, it says"
- Keep Wow! What an amazing, unsearched AFD! Thanks, Cunard, for finding sources. I'm working on it, but you did it quicker than me. LOL. The consort is a king's mother, and when her son Emperor Shun ascended the throne, she was promoted to be the 'Consort Dowager' (皇太妃) and mother of a kingdom. She has a full enough article in the Great View of Imperial Consorts Throughout Chinese History and Biography of the Empress and Concubines. That is more than enough to meet WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Thanks 223.204.68.123 (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- 'Keep happy to see this article kept, and it's justified based on the discussion in Southern History, the Chen Huaxin article and the lesser treatment in 皇后妃嫔传. Per WP:NBASIC we can combine multiple sources with less substantial treatment for biographical articles. Oblivy (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 13:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Myth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very little coverage on the web. Being a support act and esp. for tribute bands does not establish notability per WP:BAND. Previous AfD nomination was closed due to prior vandalism on the page. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - Their bland name makes searching tough, but a search for individual members leads to a few minor newspaper articles in their country: [24], [25], [26], [27]. Those have some basic info but are not very descriptive about the band's entire history. There may be enough for a stub article here, per a generous reading of the coverage requirements in WP:NBAND. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified by Doomsdayer above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was draftify. The result would normally be delete, but there's potential for this to be notable in the future, with someone expressing interest in updating a draft, so draftify is a better alternative to deletion in this case. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- 2024–25 Malaysia A2 Amateur League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seasonal article for a non-notable lower division amateur league in Malaysia, nothing indicates that such an article would pass WP:GNG Snowflake91 (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Draftify I do think it's notable - it does get coverage in local papers, and a third tier amateur league isn't ineligible if it passes WP:GNG. The bigger problem here is that it appears to be WP:TOOSOON - all of the coverage is from last season, such as [28] [29]. SportingFlyer T·C 02:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- This tournament not start yet, schedule in June. I will find reliable source to update in this article. FM Malaysia (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca and Ailurus fulgens) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic is not needed. It is handled at both of the species' articles (giant panda and red panda) as well as the disambiguation (panda (disambiguation)). - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Biology. UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - eminently superfluous. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree it's redundant with the species articles. If there is any intersection discussion between the two in terms of characteristics, that can be handled in the respective species articles like we do for other species that share a name or similarity. KoA (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Adding onto KoA's point, the respective Giant panda and Red panda articles already emphasize these species' distinct evolutionary history with Red panda#Phylogeny providing multiple phylogenetic trees to explain this point. BluePenguin18 ( ) 07:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Football at the 2027 Pan American Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON. There is absolutely no need or use for this page so far away from the 2027 Games. The desire to create articles too early should be stamped out. It won't be any more useful in six months either, negating the desirability of draftification. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 South American U-17 Women's Championship and many others. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, and Chile. WCQuidditch ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Completely hasty in relation to the event. Svartner (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete way WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability, and there won't be any updates for 2 years. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Far WP:TOOSOON. — Jkudlick (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Carlos Pesina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article. No pre or post-wiki sig coverage. Being on the crew in a lot of video games does not automatically inherit notability. Wikipedia Library, Newspapers.com, and current Google search results in hardly any in-depth sig coverage. Passings mentions/brief coverage I could find from major pubs: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7- do not help passing GNG. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Martial arts. X (talk) 10:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 10:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing has changed in the article since the previous discussion. There's no doubt he was part of the Mortal Kombat animation and motion capture, but there's still no indication of significant coverage of him. A much better case can be made for his brother, but notability is not inherited. Perhaps a case can be made for redirect or merge to the article on Daniel Pesina, but I'm not seeing the rationale for an individual article on Carlos. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Still fails WP:BASIC, only passing mentions, no significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. The lack of sig coverage is addressed now. But the article now needs a total rewrite only having information supported by the sources. (non-admin closure) X (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Lee Kelso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article. The only pre-wiki sig coverage I could find is a WSJ article (which is also not solely about him, but his company-related investments). Even searching today, the subject does not appear to have any in-depth coverage whatsoever. Being an anchor for TV stations does not automatically inherit notability. I checked via Newspapers.com and Wikipedia Library, and couldn't find any printed sources that discuss him. All available online, and in print, were passing mentions focusing on the TV programs, and mentioning him as the anchor. X (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Television. X (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 10:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The problem here, Xoak, is that Fort Wayne newspapers are not in Newspapers.com. They are in databases TWL does not provide, namely GenealogyBank/NewsBank. There are some longer pieces, but it would take a lot for me to keep a page on an anchor in a sub-100 DMA. Take a look at what I've hauled up and tell me if I need to dig up more: [30]; [31] + [32] Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Sammi Brie, These are wonderful sources. Kudos for digging up. So much so that I'd be willing to withdrew my nomination now. Tho the article needs a trim and should only have information with newly provided inline citations. X (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- 2005 Air Kasaï Antonov An-26B crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Accident barely demonstrates notability. Fails the general notability guideline, the event criteria and doesn't demonstrate any lasting effects. Accident barely has any coverage whatsoever. I've only been able to find three news channels covering it including two in french and one in english: NBC news; Congo Planète (French); AllAfrica (French). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Africa, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ✎ 10:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Tayler Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article with an IMDb external link. Pre-wiki coverage was hard to find, even a cursory Google search today shows nothing. Although the actor seems to have played several minor roles in notable shows, there's no significant coverage of him that I could find. If printed sources exist, one may list them. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 10:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Pavel Šulc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I apologize if this may not be a good nomination because I do not follow Czech football league, but am doing so as what the tag states. Despite the corresponding CZ Wikipedia article being longer, from what I can read, the secondary sources listed there only contain brief mentions on Pavel Šulc himself; nothing in-depth to pass WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, unquestionable notability. The player had a breakout season this year, and is covered week after week after week (examples from one news outlet). Who has time to sift through it all? I started making some additions as to how the player had made his mark. Geschichte (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Currently the top scorer of the 2023–24 Czech First League season, member of Czech Republic national football team. This nomination is a bad joke. FromCzech (talk) 10:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep – Per above. Apparently mistaken appointment. Svartner (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Article could certainly be improved, but the player is clearly notable now, [33], [34], having played for the national team, etc. Govvy (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Very surprising nomination. This is a clearly a notable subject. Anwegmann (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as above, obviously notable, awful nomination. GiantSnowman 17:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with everything that has been written above apart from the nominator's statement. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ștefan Buchiu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don’t really see the types of references that would confirm notability per WP:PROF. Perhaps they exist (I couldn’t find any), but they aren’t here.
Out of the 18 references, 12 are from the official news agency (Basilica), newspaper (Lumina) or head office of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Two are the subject’s CVs hosted on his university’s site, while a third is on the site of the Musical Society with which he collaborated. Two are passing mentions from other theological seminaries. Finally, we have his CV reproduced in an obscure newspaper (Cuvântul Olteniei), probably sent by a press officer. Biruitorul Talk 07:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Romania. WCQuidditch ✎ 10:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for initiating this discussion regarding the notability of Prof. Ștefan Buchiu and for your concerns about the types of references cited. It is indeed true that a portion of the references come from sources related to the Romanian Orthodox Church, such as the Basilica News Agency and Lumina newspaper. This is largely because Fr. Prof. Buchiu's contributions and activities are within the ecclesiastical and theological community. As a prominent figure in this domain, I believe coverage by these specialized sources is both expected and appropriate, reflecting his standing and influence in the field.
- In response to the need for additional independent sources, I have updated the article to include references to three significant books that discuss Prof. Buchiu’s biography and contributions to Orthodox theology. These books are reputable academic publications, providing a critical and scholarly view of his work and impact. Notably, one of these books is a festschrift in his honor, published on his 70th birthday, which includes contributions from fellow academics, underscoring his notability in the theological community. Such festschrifts are recognized in academia as significant honors that reflect a scholar's impact in their field.
- Moreover, the event of his 70th birthday itself, which was marked by significant academic and ecclesiastical gatherings, further supports his notability under the criteria outlined in WP:PROF. This event and the publication of the festschrift are indicative of his standing within the theological community enhancing the article's credibility and alignment with Wikipedia's notability standards for academics.
- Given these points, and considering the detailed criteria under WP:PROF, Prof. Buchiu’s scholarly output and his role in advancing Orthodox theology both domestically and internationally are documented and significant. His career enriches academic and theological discourse, making the retention of this article valuable for Wikipedia's coverage of notable academic figures in theology. KoreSoteria (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for those additional sources. The entry in Păcurariu, for example, is a good indication of notability. Let’s see if anyone else wishes to add something to the discussion. — Biruitorul Talk 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I am not familiar with the expected academic output in this field, but 21 citations since 2008 and an h-index of 3 on GS seem very low to me. There could be other metrics involved, such as the quality of the journals or the publishing houses where those publications appeared, but I cannot evaluate those. Turgidson (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have included additional authoritative references to Prof. Ștefan Buchiu's Wikipedia page to further substantiate his notability. The article now contains references from the Library of Congress Authorities and the Bibliothèque nationale de France, which are highly reputable sources that affirm Prof. Buchiu's academic standing. These sources provide a strong independent confirmation of his scholarly work and are indicative of his recognition in academic libraries globally. I believe these additions significantly strengthen the case for notability per WP:PROF. KoreSoteria (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to satisfy both WP:PROF and WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep as having a dedicated Festschrift is one of the criteria for passing WP:NPROF see specific criteria notes 1c, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Eberron novels#The Inquisitives. ✗plicit 05:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Legacy of Wolves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails to list the notability of its subject, and does not display media coverage. The article was originally a redirect to List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks, which may say something about the book itself's notability. Samoht27 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Samoht27 (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to, I guess, List of Eberron novels#The Inquisitives as WP:AtD. There is only one review, so this seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Still, what has already been collected should not simply be lost in deletion. If anyone knows of any more secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 13:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to List of Eberron novels#The Inquisitives per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The author's web page for Legacy of Wolves does not list any reliable reviews of the book. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children. On balance, the arguments for redirecting are stronger than those for keeping, not to mention more numerous. Owen× 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Prince Nicolas of Sweden, Duke of Ångermanland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating this article for failing to prove notability by WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. This is an 8-year-old child and should be redirected and merged into the parent article until such a time there is independent notability.
Move to restore redirect to Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children section. Similar to Princess Leonore, Duchess of Gotland (9th in line for Succession to the Swedish throne). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Sweden. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment See the 2020 AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland, which was closed as redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Firstly, all the other Royal family members of Europe have individual articles for their kids. Secondly, the sources are good. And it falls within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's simply untrue. There is no article for Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, for instance. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again, all Royals and those of Scandinavias children have separate articles. Why should the Swedish royals be any different. Still passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 06:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. He is independently notable. His titles as prince and duke belong to him, not to his parents. The deletion of Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium was probably a mistake. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Eastmain - it was likely not a mistake. A great number of adolescent children of nobility redirected to their parents regardless of their title/station. As noted above, please see previous AFDs of children of nobility. Additionally, King Gustaf's grandchildren no longer have royal titles (albeit a bit more nuanced). Just being a noble is not automatic notability (see the failed WP:NR discussion). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is where most of you have it wrong including the Harpe Bazzer article cited the child of prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine only lost their styles of His/Her Royal Highness but they are still prince(s) and Princess (s) of Sweden, Duke(s) and Duchesses and still in the line of succession[1] they are listed by the royal court of Sweden as members of the royal family and are not required to perform any duties incumbent of the head of state Ug culture (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Eastmain - it was likely not a mistake. A great number of adolescent children of nobility redirected to their parents regardless of their title/station. As noted above, please see previous AFDs of children of nobility. Additionally, King Gustaf's grandchildren no longer have royal titles (albeit a bit more nuanced). Just being a noble is not automatic notability (see the failed WP:NR discussion). Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. The fact that this article contains no information about his life since his christening suggests that he is probably not in the public spotlight. In fact, he and his sisters have had their royal status downgraded since they were born; since 2019, they no longer have the style of "royal highness" and are no longer considered members of the Royal House, although they remain princes and princesses and members of the Royal Family. [35] Practically speaking, this means that as adults they will be expected to pursue careers outside royal duties rather than being paid by the monarch from government funds. (That's not mentioned in this article, but is mentioned at the redirect target.) If, in the future, Nicolas does go into the public spotlight, whether as a socialite or as anything else, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- His grandfather's sisters(The Haga princesses) are nolonger members of the royal house and their articles are in existence.why then should articles of those who is in the line of succession be deleted and members who are not be retained Ug culture (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The criterion we use is not "Is this person in the line of succession?" but rather "Do we have enough significant coverage of the person in reliable independent sources to warrant an article?". Among persons related to monarchs, there may be some who are excluded from the succession but remain public figures and thus generate significant coverage, while others may be in the line of succession but out of the public eye at least for now (particularly young children). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- And that is an approach that can be strongly questioned. Princes and princesses of reigning royal families are per definition important persons who warrant their own articles. Therefore, this article should be kept, and the deleted articles of his siblings and cousins should be reinstated. Marbe166 (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- if we are to go by this then Former Monarch of Denmark's grandchildren (prince Joachim's children) whose titles have been taken away and they do not generate significant coverage their articles have not been withdrawn and like Marbe166 said the deleted articles of prince Nicolas's siblings and his cousins should be reinstated Ug culture (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- The criterion we use is not "Is this person in the line of succession?" but rather "Do we have enough significant coverage of the person in reliable independent sources to warrant an article?". Among persons related to monarchs, there may be some who are excluded from the succession but remain public figures and thus generate significant coverage, while others may be in the line of succession but out of the public eye at least for now (particularly young children). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- His grandfather's sisters(The Haga princesses) are nolonger members of the royal house and their articles are in existence.why then should articles of those who is in the line of succession be deleted and members who are not be retained Ug culture (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.kungahuset.se/english/royal-house.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - ^ https://people.com/royals/princess-madeleine-and-prince-carl-philips-kids-were-stripped-of-their-royal-titles-by-the-king/.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
- Keep addendum: over 4 000 hits in Mediearkivet Retriever . Okay, some of them are about the Greek prince and the remainder is ~90% gossipy tabloids, which still leaves a couple of hundred hits in Swedish mainstream newspapers. I don't buy that we should have special rules for the nobility, it's the 21st century after all, but neither should anti-royalist sentiments cloud our judgement. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC) (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect. Articles shouldn't be recreated in violation of a previous community discussion. There's insufficient here for a standalone article at present. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Grandson of a ruling monarch and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect First, I can't see how he meets WP:GNG. In many AfD discussions the phrase "Meets WP:GNG" seems to be just an elaborate WP:VOTE. If you think that he falls into WP:GNG, please explain why, otherwise your contribution does not provide much progress into a discussion. Second, please refer to the 2020 AfD discussion. If you want to reach a different consensus, you should explain what changed since then. Third, just beeing related to someone notable, like a ruling monarch, does not mean automatic notability, see WP:BIORELATED. --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect: Titles are not, and should not be, part of the criteria for NBASIC. All of the coverage is about him as a relation to his parents and even then a lot of them are just photo galleries which do not amount to substantial coverage, which is to be expected as a christening is a pretty routine event - so they do not meet GNG by my reckoning. I don't know what is meant by Marbe166 saying
per definition important persons who warrant their own articles
, what definition is this refering to? Being an heir to anything shouldn't confer notability since notability is not inhereted. It is reasonble to assume that there will be coverage of this subject once he grows up, but since that's in the futre there's no good reason to have an article at the moment. ---- D'n'B-t -- 17:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC) - Restore redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland#Marriage and children: Per Nom. Lacks notability. Wikipedia is not a genealogy outlet nor is notability of royal households inherited (Example: Just being the grandson of a ruling monarch is not a stepping stone to an article), See WP:BLPFAMILY. Lacks significant, reliable, and independent coverage for a stand alone article. Bringing in that other stuff exists means there might be more AFD's needed. Notability (royalty) is a failed proposal. It states: "Anyone who was, at one point, an official member of a ruling family of a country is considered notable", which is against current community consensus. There is no compelling evidence that anything changed since consensus for the redirect. The people magazine source stated they "lost their official HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) titles" and further, "will no longer be members of The Royal House". The parents of the children involved all made statements they support the Kings decision so their children can have more privacy. Wikipedia should honor this for children. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with this. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent (WP:OUTCOMES). What's good for Great Britain is good for Sweden. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The relevant section of WP:OUTCOMES -- which isn't even a policy or guideline anyway -- doesn't particularly support keeping this article. It says, "The descendants of monarchs or nobles, especially deposed ones, are not considered notable for this reason alone. The principle that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries is often mentioned in this context. But persons who are active in their capacity as a member of a royal house or as a holder of a title of nobility will often receive media coverage for it, which may help establish their notability according to the general notability guideline." (See WP:MONARCH.) Prince Nicolas, as an 8-year-old child, is not exactly "active" in the capacity of a member of a royal house. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect: Redirect to mother and revdel everything. Nicolas is a non-public figure, a child that has done nothing notable, and the only coverage about him is from royal-watching tabloid publications. The keep votes basically amount to "he has a royal title" or "he's in a royal family", but there's no SNG that says every royal gets a page no matter what. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Several of the keep !votes above rely on the fact that other article exist and that we'd also have to delete other articles if this one is deleted. WP:WHATABOUTX is a bad argument because we evaluate each article on its individual merits, not in reference to what other articles we may or may not have. Those !votes should be completely discounted. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Further comment: Otr500 provides a great reason for REVDEL here: these children are no longer in the line of succession and the press coverage is about them existing, not about them doing anything notable. Our policies (BLP) require that we respect the privacy of these children. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. One look at Swedish-language sources shows that the guy gets sufficient coverage to warrant an article. Cortador (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS, mentions are not indepth coverage, notability is not inherited from family connections, and crystal balls do not establish notability. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 17:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to KJJC-TV. There's a consensus here not to retain (between nominator, two bolded opinions and one comment), choosing redirect as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- KINV-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the GNG. Delete or merge with sister KJJC-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Montana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Lacking any secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG and I can't locate any significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Really only these two articles to speak of: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-billings-gazette-christian-tv-statio/88543335/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-billings-gazette-fcc-licenses-low-po/145098846/ Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to KJJC-TV: I can't say there's all that much to truly merge there, but the brief mention in the lead is just enough to merit a redirect as an alternative to deletion in the absence of sufficiently-substantial coverage. WCQuidditch ✎ 00:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Spice rack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Spice ranks are useful, in fact we have one. However, that does not make them something which is notable enough to have a page. The first two sources are definition, the third (of three) is a blog that (rightly) suggests that they help to organize a kitchen. I agree, but no need for a page on that here IMHO. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Kpgjhpjm 06:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or draftify if the creator/someone else wants to try improving it. The sourcing is woefully inadequate and notability is not shown here. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 17:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - essentially a wordy WP:DICDEF with some WP:NOTHOWTO thrown in (labels!). LizardJr8 (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Birtara Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article that lacks context for readers and editor. Looking at the article, I can't say whether it's a place or something related to an organisation. Hence, doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:NGEO. I have searched for sources but found none. The one source cited seems not strong to attain WP:GNG as it doesn't pose significant coverage or verifiable ones that say the topic exist and is notable.
Aside from theses, facts needs to be verifiable. I will also need a ping when sources are found.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Bangladesh. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
DraftifyKeep This article is indeed notable. It is one of union councils of Bangladesh. And I believe there should be some good source for it. We can also see a source about its population in the article.But the thing is the article isn’t in good state. We should send it to draft. If the article creator can improve the article then it can be moved to mainspace.Mehedi Abedin 07:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Comment I noticed that before nominating it for deletion discussion the article was vandalised by a ip. The nominator probably nominated it without realizing that. I restored the article's previous version. Mehedi Abedin 07:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Unnecessarily brought to Afd. It is a union of Bangladesh and its name is found everywhere including search, map, government site and news. Ontor22 (talk) 07:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Just found out it was vandalized. My bad, will do another time! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete G12 All versions of the article are a copyright violation. Whpq (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- Philadelphia Office of Emergency Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable city-level government agency. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - Let's try to make it better before deleting it. The OEM is a relatively new city agency and has had increased prominence recently due to events like the Delaware River chemical spill in 2023 and the 2023 wildfires, and other more localized emergencies. Unbandito (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- No objection to improvement but we do need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Philadelphia#Public_safety as preferred WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- What content do you believe should be merged and where's the secondary source coverage to support it? Because at the moment the only source is a press release from the City of Philadelphia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SECONDARY is definitely preferred and is required to establish notability. I am not arguing that this is an independently notable organization. WP:PRIMARY is acceptable for verification of a paragraph in a larger article. I would suggest merging this short article as a new section under Philadelphia#Public_safety. The content can then be improved in place by editors of the Philadelphia article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have to disagree, I think it's completely undue at the Philadelphia article. Without secondary sources we have no reason to believe this is a noteworthy organisation. I also absolutely oppose inserting irrelevant and unacceptable content at another article with the expectation someone else will "improve" it at some unknown time. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, you're free to disagree. However, I've proposed an WP:ATD (policy) and your response approaches WP:IDONTLIKEIT (argument to avoid). Your WP:UNDUE argument is also without merit as my proposed subsection would be smaller than the others existing there. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems you think WP:ATD prohibits actually deleting an article on a non-notable topic under any circumstances, ever. Really struggling to see how what I said is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are arguments to avoid at deletion discussions. I'm raising legitimate sourcing and quality content concerns which you have completely ignored. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm ignoring article quality issues because WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- That's a reason not to delete an entire article, not to insert new content in another article. I think this time you're really reaching trying to avoid deletion via ATD. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm ignoring article quality issues because WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It seems you think WP:ATD prohibits actually deleting an article on a non-notable topic under any circumstances, ever. Really struggling to see how what I said is an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which are arguments to avoid at deletion discussions. I'm raising legitimate sourcing and quality content concerns which you have completely ignored. AusLondonder (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, you're free to disagree. However, I've proposed an WP:ATD (policy) and your response approaches WP:IDONTLIKEIT (argument to avoid). Your WP:UNDUE argument is also without merit as my proposed subsection would be smaller than the others existing there. ~Kvng (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have to disagree, I think it's completely undue at the Philadelphia article. Without secondary sources we have no reason to believe this is a noteworthy organisation. I also absolutely oppose inserting irrelevant and unacceptable content at another article with the expectation someone else will "improve" it at some unknown time. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SECONDARY is definitely preferred and is required to establish notability. I am not arguing that this is an independently notable organization. WP:PRIMARY is acceptable for verification of a paragraph in a larger article. I would suggest merging this short article as a new section under Philadelphia#Public_safety. The content can then be improved in place by editors of the Philadelphia article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- What content do you believe should be merged and where's the secondary source coverage to support it? Because at the moment the only source is a press release from the City of Philadelphia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, there is nothing suitable to merge.
- The two prose sentences were copied verbatim from the referenced PDF (page 74/76) at the article's creation. As far as I can tell from Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States#Pennsylvania and its ref, the PDF is copyrighted without a Wikipedia-compatible free license. Even if the copied text is not a copyright violation (WP:Copyright violations, policy), the official OEM site should be preferred as a source because it is current, not ten years out of date.
- {{Infobox government agency}} would be inappropriate detail in Philadelphia#Public safety.
- As AusLondonder commented above, a subsection for OEM of any length seems excessive, due to WP:WEIGHT (shortcut to WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, policy) considerations. The existing subsections have {{Main}} templates linking to Philadelphia Police Department and Philadelphia Fire Department, respectively. Although WP:Be bold is a guideline, I recommend proposing the addition at Talk:Philadelphia first.
- Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I buy these arguments but if I did, I think they would argue for a redirect to Philadelphia. That way the contents would be available to Philadelphia editors in the redirect's history. ~Kvng (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Always trying to scratch around for an "alternative" to deleting inappropriate content isn't necessary. Some content simply does not belong on Wikipedia. AusLondonder (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Complex/Rational 23:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Jishnu (Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Salt evasion of Jishnu (actor) and Jishnu Raghavan. Article needs to be moved to either of these titles if kept. CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris talk! 04:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep The subject pass WP:NACTOR which says “ The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions” He has worked on numerous films, many of which are notable. Also, he pass WP:GNG as there are multiple reliable secondary sources availble which talks about the subject. It should be moved to Jishnu (actor) .Grabup (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with @User:CNMall41. Grabup (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not agree PUPPYMANG (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Keep this article there are valid reasons to keep this aricle because he has good recognition and fame in film industry, Notable actor, Acted more than 20 films in Malayalam including one Tamil and Hindi film.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
- PUPPYMANG (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- For Example: Janhvi Kapoor article first of all it has been deleted then again deleted and multiple times recreated and redirected. Finally the Particular editor Protected that page into Extended Automated Confirmed user indefinitely due to Persistent Sockpuppetry. So, why can't you do for Jishnu also. PUPPYMANG (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - In addition to this being a clear WP:DUCK and G5, it falls under everything that Wikipedia is NOT. The number of socks and UPE attempting this page is unbelievable. I previously started notifying projects globally of the abuse but looks like that effort needs stepped up as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- SPI for reference is here. Looks like simultaneous filings since it is a clear DUCK. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, I support
Delete. Grabup (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- In this case, I support
- SPI for reference is here. Looks like simultaneous filings since it is a clear DUCK. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep: It is better to give indefinite protection. Other than deletion better protect this Page. PUPPYMANG (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Striking duplicate vote. Please keep in mind that each participant is only allowed to !vote once. See WP:!vote. CycloneYoris talk! 03:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Actor Jishnu Raghavan dies; celebs offer condolences". www.ibtimes.co.in. 25 March 2023.
- ^ "Actor Jishnu Raghavan still an inspiration". ritzmagazine.in. 25 March 2016.
- ^ "Karma Games is my tribute to Jishnu: Aadarsh". The Times of India. 11 December 2017.
- ^ Bureau, Kerala (27 Mar 2016). "A promising career cut short by cancer". The Hindu.
{{cite news}}
:|last1=
has generic name (help) - ^ "Jishnu returns, after the break". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 3 October 2012.
- ^ "Last film of director Rajesh Pillai and actor Jishnu : Hindi version of Traffic got released today". onlookersmedia.in. 6 May 2016.
- ^ "Cine world shocked over Jishnu's death". english.mathrubhumi.com. 25 March 2016.
- ^ "I used to love housework: Jishnu Raghavan". The Times of India. 24 January 2017.
- ^ "It is difficult to believe Jishnu is no more: Raghavan". timesofindia.indiatimes.com. 27 April 2016.
- ^ "Jishnu Raghavan Leaves the Stage Mid-show". newindianexpress.com. 27 March 2016.
- ^ "Buddies' tribute to warrior pal Jishnu". Deccan Chronicle. 27 March 2016.
- ^ "5 memorable faces of Jishnu". www.onmanorama.com. 25 March 2016.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bulgaria women's international footballers. ✗plicit 05:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Tsvetana Mancheva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 05:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- List of tallest buildings in Thrissur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A collection of random buildings in the city and doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. The sources used are either dead or primary, with no SIGCOV in any independent reliable sources justifying the existence of any such list. Except one, none of the buildings listed aren't notable by itself, and hence WP:SALAT is not justified. WP:NOTDIR applies too. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 03:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC) 122.3.167.234 (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ) 18:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Grabup (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 00:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Kaşınhan railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviewed during NPP. Fails WP:BUILDING/WP:NTRAINSTATION, not seeing significant coverage outside of routine non-independent service announcements from Turkish State Railways and passing mentions which confirm this train station exists, but not that it's notable. The only source in the article doesn't even namecheck the subject. Possible redirect target: Konya–Yenice railway. Pilaz (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Pilaz (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 18:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Why has this specific article been tagged after years? I find these requests very puzzling, as there are numerous articles like this, not just for Turkish railways, but around the world. While editing Turkish railway articles, my goal is to add and bring them up to the standard of American railway articles, hence the article on individual railway stations. If this article will be deleted, does that mean every station in Turkey, except the large one, will follow suite? Of course additions can be made, given time (I work full-time). The history can be added regarding the Baghdad railway, hosting the famous Taurus express along with its rebuilding to accommodate HSTs. In any case, this article should be kept and NOT deleted. Cheers. (Central Data Bank (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC))
- New page patrollers check whether new articles conform to Wikipedia's core content policies. I found this article through the New pages feed, and, despite its age, it was yet to be reviewed. As far as community guidelines go, articles may be deleted if they don't meet the general notability guideline or one of many specific notability guidelines. In this case, a cursory search of sources turned up little to show that this two-platform station is notable, hence why it is brought here for broader community review. Pilaz (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- More than likely they will be deleted, unless you can find significant sourcing for each building. We don't have much of anything here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well then as a patroller, please tell me the difference between this article and, for example, Alderson station. Both have more or less the same amount of info provided. I am asking, so I can update Kasinhani station to keep the article. And if we are going to firesale and begin to destroy the whole Turkish railway community on wikipedia, why has Kasinhani been singled out? Why not go on to delete all the others, except the large notable ones? My point being, this seems to be an act of prejudicial(?) selection, not following any consistent form of wider article selection other than singling out a random article and nominating it for deletion. Yes, I am frustrated in this situation, because it is very random, and without logic, unless ALL other similar articles would follow suite. (Not just in Turkey, but all over the world) (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC))
- All buildings
require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability
per WP:NBUILDING. The fact that that article hasn't been nominated doesn't mean it's necessarily notable or abiding by Wikipedia notability guidelines. And no, you article wasn't singled out: railway station articles are routinely brought to AfD, see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puksinhyon station. So, unless anyone can find significant coverage for this building (basically: has anyone ever written about this train station in detail?), this article does not meet our notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a collection of everything. Pilaz (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- All buildings
- Well then as a patroller, please tell me the difference between this article and, for example, Alderson station. Both have more or less the same amount of info provided. I am asking, so I can update Kasinhani station to keep the article. And if we are going to firesale and begin to destroy the whole Turkish railway community on wikipedia, why has Kasinhani been singled out? Why not go on to delete all the others, except the large notable ones? My point being, this seems to be an act of prejudicial(?) selection, not following any consistent form of wider article selection other than singling out a random article and nominating it for deletion. Yes, I am frustrated in this situation, because it is very random, and without logic, unless ALL other similar articles would follow suite. (Not just in Turkey, but all over the world) (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC))
- Delete Unless there is some sort of heritage designation for the building, there likely isn't much on it. This is all I could find [36], which is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- The pdf you have shared is a great resource for stations in Turkey actually, thank you for finding it. (Central Data Bank (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC))
- Keep without prejudice to a discussion about all the stations on the line as a group. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia from singing out random examples from a set of similar articles. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Youth Coalition for Organ Donation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Organization known for a single effort that didn't succeed. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable independent sources to meet WP:NORG/WP:SIRS. Jfire (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ✎ 04:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- One failed measure which was enough to garner local, regional, and national news still meets Wikipedia’s notability standards, but in this case, there was an additional, successful piece of legislation passed in partnership with The YCOD.
- Meets notability standards. Evanroden1 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to New Series Adventures. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wishing Well (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book, fails WP:NBOOK. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to New Series Adventures per WP:ATD. Little or no sourced content to merge. No reviews in WP:LIBRARY or ISFDB. The review cited in the article is self-published. Jfire (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 03:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Eva Devi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The two sources listed here (one being a Who's Who) are not enough to establish the diverse coverage WP:GNG, and a quick search finds little on her. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ✎ 22:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [37]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [38] [39]. Also there's another sources about the subject [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- — 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- — Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: The sources in the article along with this and this should be enough for GNG. At the very least, it's very likely that there is SIGCOV in offline sources. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, there appears to be SIGCOV of her in this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Devi probably passes NACTOR as well. She starred in Senyum Nona Anna (coverage here), Papa, Mistery in Hongkong, Pulau Putri, Kenapa Kau Pergi and Jurus Maut. She also starred in Mei Lan, Aku Cinta Padamu, which according to this launched the career of Hendra Cipta. It's likely that these films have SIGCOV in offline sources. It's a shame that that's unverifiable though. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: An article about an Indonesian actress and model with unverifiable notability. On English wiki, every statement must be verifiable by at least a reliable source. Here, the films listed weren't sources and won't count to NACTOR. There has no been any recognition or I influence cited by peer for acting in Indonesia films; infact BEFORE have nothing except existence on books which still commutes non notability per SIGCOV. I won't rather vote for now since I am not used or neither speaks Indonesian language (there may be existing but I have clear doubts because the article I saw on ID Wikipedia cited no source.) This is not also a case of System bias, while I can't find maybe two successive citations to her impact in the 1990's or an interview in the 2000's on her role. On the other hand, I will say delete for now. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I am of the opinion that nobody should strike comments from an AFD they initiated. Though it may seem clear-cut, the nominator should instead have a third party carry out the sockstrike. Geschichte (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. To have the article renamed (there is still no consensus on that), a move discussion needs to be initiated. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 03:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Jeffrey Northrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The officer has never been notable. There was no coverage of him until his death. All coverage is related to his death and related trial. Biographical sources are essentially obituaries. No reporter is doing any serious investigation into his life before his last day, nor should they, since he was a private person. The trial has had lots of coverage, but we're not a news outlet. While tragic, its not historic. --Rob (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- If he's not notable, well, I think his death is. No? What if the article's name is changed to "Death of Jeffrey Northrup"? - EclecticEnnui (talk) 06:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a name change of the article would be most fair. The relevant information could be retained while respecting the private life of officer Northrup. 142.126.191.237 (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- OK, sounds good. Should we wait and see if other users are gonna give their opinion? - EclecticEnnui (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think a name change of the article would be most fair. The relevant information could be retained while respecting the private life of officer Northrup. 142.126.191.237 (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Rob (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Canada. WCQuidditch ✎ 04:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- DELETE. What was tragic was (a) Northrup's stupidity in getting killed, and (b) the fact that an innocent person had his life ruined for three years while the state tried to prove an unprovable case of first degree murder. This article should be deleted and a new one about this whole case created. --24.80.199.58 (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Rename to Crown v Umar Zameer, assuming the case was called that. Connor Behan (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but rename. The story here is not the death of the officer, which is tragic, but the conduct of the Toronto Police Service (including possible collusion to commit perjury to lock away an innocent man), that has prompted an investigation. Coverage has gone far beyond the typical murder case. See [46] [47][48]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep but rename: The story is about police undercover procedures, police bias, conflicts between police officer testimony and expert testimony, weakness in the prosecution evidence and prosecutor bias. Perhaps the article title should be "Murder trial of Umar Zameer"; there are several Wikipedia articles prefixed by "Murder trial of". TheTrolleyPole (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine if somebody wishes to close this early as keep except for the article body, subject matter, and all of the original content which is the clear consensus above. I withdraw (I don't know how to close it myself). --Rob (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Aintabli (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Historiography of Indigenous genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reviewed during NPP. This is sort of an essay, the contents of which is just describing what approximately 10 different sources said about Genocide of Indigenous peoples, there is no real distinct topic here. IMO a merge into that article should be done although the material to merge would be commentary by ~10 sources on Genocide of Indigenous peoples and the sources themselves. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and North America. WCQuidditch ✎ 04:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This is specifically about historians writing about the genocide as opposed to the genocide itself. Instead of deleting this or merging this into the 300K byte main article Genocide of Indigenous peoples, the historiography material there could be merged into this article. Yuchitown (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown
- Keep I'd like to withdraw this nomination. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Park Seung-ri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
*Keep per sources at ja:朴昇利 Japanese wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- what do the sources say? GiantSnowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: To be honest, the sources seem pretty routine, transfers, contracts and terminations. There was one good source talking about his trial, but it really wasn't that great. I realised I read some of it wrong, I also thought he was playing at a higher level. As he played for quite a few clubs I don't believe a redirect would work. I am going to change my vote to delete. Regards Govvy (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a more in-depth look. GiantSnowman 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: To be honest, the sources seem pretty routine, transfers, contracts and terminations. There was one good source talking about his trial, but it really wasn't that great. I realised I read some of it wrong, I also thought he was playing at a higher level. As he played for quite a few clubs I don't believe a redirect would work. I am going to change my vote to delete. Regards Govvy (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- what do the sources say? GiantSnowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect I think its better to either redirect the page to Azul Claro Numazu or delete it since the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, including WP:BASIC or even WP:1E. Also, the Japanese page lacks sufficient sourcing and quality writing, so i see no reason to maintain it. Lililolol (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per above. Just routine sources. Svartner (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hong Dae-hwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- List of career achievements by Larry Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Purely an indiscriminate list of statistics that is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment For reference, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwight Howard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Carmelo Anthony , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Chris Paul and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Dwyane Wade (2nd nomination).
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete indiscriminate list of stats with no added encyclopedic value. Broc (talk) 09:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep but prune (e.g. game winners aren't particularly noteworthy). Bird is one of the all-time greats of basketball, with many notable achievements. (No offense to the others whose lists have been deleted, but Bird is in a different league.)Clarityfiend (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)- Delete. Bird is a Hall of Famer, but these achievements are a bit of a stretch (e.g. 49 points, 14 rebounds, 12 assists and one blocked shot in a game). Not a lot there that warrants a standalone list. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - just FYI to everyone. List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus was kept after AfD discussion a couple weeks ago. The result was a unanimous keep. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally a convincing argument. Let'srun (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. But I will continue mentioning it every time since WP:OSE (Howard, Anthony, Paul, Wade) is being shared above on the deletion side of things. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Except the other listed AfDs are just links, are to the same sport and league, and dont explictly mention their outcome. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. But I will continue mentioning it every time since WP:OSE (Howard, Anthony, Paul, Wade) is being shared above on the deletion side of things. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- WP:TOOBIG was the major reason cited there, which doesn't apply to Larry Bird.—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not generally a convincing argument. Let'srun (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Unneeded WP:CONTENTFORK packed with WP:UNDUE, indiscriminate mentions of trivial statistical cross sections. Major, defining achievements should be captured in the main bio. Also fails WP:NOTSTATS:
Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing
The page is a pure stats dump.—Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC) - Delete Per nom, don't need such lists especially said achievements can be placed in the player's own main page in an accolades, or legacy area. Will also copy paste this to the other aforementioned lists. Noorullah (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ho Jong-min (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Han Yong-gi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ólafsfjarðarvöllur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely hoax. Only source is permanent dead link. "Capacity of 2100" is more than twice the town's population. Claims to be the home field of Knattspyrnufélag Fjarðabyggðar, which was in a completely different part of Iceland. Numberguy6 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iceland. WCQuidditch ✎ 04:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. I added several references. For the capacity, https://www.nordicstadiums.com/olafsfjardarvollur/ says total capacity of 2,100 but only 150 seats, which is consistent with the photos in the references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - I normally suggest redirecting non-notable stadiums, but this is not mentioned at either the club (Knattspyrnufélag Fjarðabyggðar) or the locality (Ólafsfjörður). GiantSnowman 20:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to lack notability in full. Anwegmann (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Not a hoax. Fjallabyggð and Fjarðabyggð are two separate teams, and someone picked the wrong one hence the confusion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Function Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Thrice declined at AfC prior to acceptance. While the search is hard given health functions, a search combined with Hyman's name just brings more publicity and churnalism. I don't see the WP:SIRS depth of sourcing required for WP:CORP. A merger to Mark Hyman (doctor) might be possible as the only co-founder with an article, but not sure that would be DUE. Star Mississippi 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Companies. Star Mississippi 00:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM. Although the article has independent references, it's a stub that reads like a promotional pamphlet, with minimal effort made to establish notability beyond one of its co-founders having a Wikipedia article of his own. CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Technology, and Texas. WCQuidditch ✎ 04:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- vote delete. feels like a company trying to promote — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:45F0:31E0:A5BA:C143:EE9E:F7BA (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. Avoids A7, but is a long way from N, and I do not see how it could possibly get there. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.