Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 01	May 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Varna University of Management

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

Organization doesn't meet notability requirements. Moritoriko (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bulgaria. Moritoriko (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability requirements, and what little info there is almost reads like a promo Claire 26 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Amiras

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this transactional announcement and this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Along with the interview provided, there's also this, just about enough for a WP:GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus that subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Keep arguments were mostly based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olanrewaju Smart

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

Fails WP:NPOL (WP:NSUBPOL), sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. In short, the offices being occupied by the subject do not guarantee notability under WP:NPOL and fail WP:GNG too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives is a notable position in Nigerian politics. His successor Jake Dan-Azumi also has a Wikipedia article. Batmanthe8th (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Batmanthe8th Oh, thank you for bringing my attention there. Under what criteria do you think COSs are notable? They do not fall under any and have to pass WP:GNG which this one and the one you have pointed me to utterly fails. Even the COS page is AfD-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall accepting the COS page a while back on the generous side due to its notable role in Nigerian politics. I didn't nessesarily imagine the individual people getting their own articles unless they were notable for something else, though. TheBritinator (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: being the Chief of Staff to the Speaker, House of Representatives and Senior Special Assistant to the President are notable positions. I know all of the Senior Advisor to the President of the United States are considered notable, so why not Nigeria especially that this article have good sources to confirm WP:42 FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Six out of 8 of the current sources are pieces about being the new chief of staff which do not pass SIGCOV. I am sure all the senior advisors to the President of the United States are not inherently notable, but they all appear pass GNG clearly. This is not the case here. This subject is not inherently notable and also fails GNG. Also, CoS to a HoR is not to be compared with a CoS-ish position to the President of a country, who is the number one citizen of that country. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where we differ. I think some positions make you inherently notable even if there is zero English sources. If I can draw parallels, for academic being a Fellow of the Royal Society automatically makes notable, regardless. You are within your rights to disagree especially that the Wikipedia:Notability (politics) has failed. FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:NPOL.Chief of Staff must meet WP:GNG OR any other WP:SNG. Shoerack (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Senior Special Assistant to the President of Nigeria, with past experience as United States IVLP Alumni of the US states dept, Chief of Staff in the 4th highest ranking public office in Nigeria has strong notability in the country's public space. I think consideration and necessary concessions should be given. 102.91.69.137 (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not meet NPOL; he is not elected for any public office, he is not a member of any cabinet (in the state or national level), he is not a legislator or a judge either. The entry needs to have enough sources to meet GNG; sources there are also press releases and his opinion published elsewhere. The keep !votes are contrary to NPOL. Best, Reading Beans 20:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Those arguing for deletion showed that this article is an egregious case of WP:OR in the particularly delicate topic area of clinical psychology. Some 'keep' !voters pointed to the topics prevalence in popular discourse, but this needn't imply automatic inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Modussiccandi (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiled child

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

This is unencyclopaedic mess of original research. This simply does not belong here. This needs WP:TNT at the very least. TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. TarnishedPath^talk 03:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think, rename to something like Spoiling (parenting). Definitely A very notable concept there, must be fixable. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTEVERYTHING This doesn't stop at defining the subject, but sections of "Potential causes", "Differential diagnosis", "Prevention", " Treatment" . Wikipedia should not be giving medical definitions and possible ways to handle it. — Maile (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hyperbolick

Perfecnot (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, this concept is very notable. While it's true this article in its current state is essentially just someones opinion piece, and contains what is likely their own observations, it's not unfixable, we should keep this article, and edit it into an acceptable place. Samoht27 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to a lack of keep rationale. It'd be helpful if someone could how this concept is supposedly notable and why we shouldn't WP:TNT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would comment as well, not necessarily strictly psychological, additionally a term in literature and history. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I seriously doubt the competence of all the !keep voters. Not just subject matter competence, but wiki/afd policy competence. What's next? Let's create Angry child and Happy child...because obviously these "concepts are very notable". Obviously. But also very unsuitable for an ecyclopedia. This article is a high-school level essay with WP:OR, which will later evolve into a messy synthesis. Spoiling in early childhood tends to create characteristic reactions that persist, fixed, into later life. These can cause significant social problems. Spoiled children may have difficulty coping with situations such as teachers scolding them or refusing to grant extensions on homework assignments, playmates refusing to allow them to play with their toys and playmates refusing playdates with them, a loss in friends, failure in employment, and failure with personal relationships. Wow, an excellent scientific prognosis of something which isn't a recognized disorder. What is this joke? Reads like 13 steps to deal with spoiled child- wikihow, but much worse. As Maile points out, Wikipedia should not be giving medical definitions and possible ways to handle it. This isn't just banal crap. This is dangerous for readers. I advise keep voters to not participate in afd's. This is not a WP:TNT article. This is outside the scope of wikipedia, and should not be recreated. — hako9 (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notably the creator of this article got permabanned for creating/editing exactly this sort of content and not taking advice over many years that they needed to stop. TarnishedPath^talk 02:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine a parent of "spoiled" child reading the article and the child suffering the consequences. — hako9 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is exactly the sort of pseudo-health advice which shouldn't be on Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 07:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I retort, WP:SOFIXIT. Not unfixable -- could use Alfie Kohn's The Myth of the Spoiled Child to debunk notions obviously popular enough to require a book just to debunk them. Term has 5K+ Google Scholar articles. Just improvable, not outside the scope. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article on the book you mentioned. Or write a effin blog. Term has 5K+ Google Scholar articles. How many hits does happy child, naughty child, sad child or say, adventurous child have. Find some books on those too. — hako9 (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, think I’ll keep it right here. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided between delete or reduce to a stub with TNT. I removed one completely unreferenced section which said literally nothing. Then I got to the "Treatment" section and that is what convinced me that the majority of the article is no good. The idea that a physician can prescribe "treatment" for a "spoiled" child is clear pseudo-medical misinformation and potentially harmful to our readers and their children. I think that the only way to save this, if we even want to, would be to move the referencing into the lede (which is not too bad) and then ditch the body entirely to make a stub. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is so obviously notable a concept in popular culture that a simple search will find dozens of sources. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If what you're claiming is true then it needs a WP:TNT at the very least and a rewrite as a stub. Anything more than a stub is bound to be a mess of WP:OR and dangerous pseudo-medical advise as we see with the current article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really only "As syndrome" section must go. Or even be rewritten such that it makes clear that these are just scratched old theories. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Its notable and AFD is not for cleanup. Desertarun (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more perspectives to try and form a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hako9. Article violates WP:SYNTH and is outside the scope of Wikipedia. The entire "of syndrome" section of the article is from one source. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 02:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Befuddling how anybody can call a clearly notable and well-covered concept "outside the scope" when objections are to a single section of the article, not even an unsourced one. Argument needing to be made as for deletion not for keeping and cleaning up. So far, nobody has argued that this just isn’t a thing which exists in literature. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
when objections are to a single section of the article

No. The section "Only children" is a deficient summary of the article Only children, which itself has a lot of issues. The section "Later life" makes extraordinary claims based on some book. The section "Infants" is taken from drspock.com, which apart from not being reliable, because it's a blog post giving general advice, also isn't verifiable. Read the source. It says, "I don't think you need to worry much about spoiling in the first month or even the first 6 months." Versus what's written in the article. "Babies cannot be spoiled in the first six months of life". I think this jump to conclusions, is what this article is all about. This article and all the contributors are incompetent to write on the subject. Secondary news sources that cite primary psychological research and behavioral studies often exaggerate their conclusions and fail to put up declaimers about how inconclusive the studies were, how small the sample size etc. I would qualify this article, and many others on wikipedia as 1000 times worse than the secondary mainstream news sources. This is a mish-mash of various theories, presented as facts. This afd reminds me of another afd I participated in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge in Islam (2nd nomination). I understand that afd has no bearing here btw but, my point is, in that afd an editor made similar vapid arguments that you and Bearian make here; "afd is not a cleanup" and "omg look at the millions of books and google hits on the subject". Waste of time tbh. Wikipedia is not a publisher of school essays. — hako9 (talk) 11:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate that cleanup is not possible. Use sources to show this. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perennial point of contention mentioned at User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing (under its old title, "Spoiled brat"). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 00:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"until the latter got properly written" in reference to this article that we are currently discussing. TarnishedPath^talk 02:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for this are of a character that there are not for those. Yes, it’s lazy to throw together a bunch of examples, call it an article. But equally lazy to ignore sources properly analyzing the thing as a thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is not encyclopaedic. It's an essay which is original research. TarnishedPath^talk 06:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fixable. Look, we have an article on Tragic hero and Tantrum, can handle this easily. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. This discussion has been going for a day shy of a month and it's as much of a mess of WP:OR now as when I nominated it. TarnishedPath^talk 03:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When argument for deletion revolves around this not being suitable for an encyclopedia to other stuff that is, other stuff is fair game. Incorrect that this is "as much of a mess." Language added now indicates that theories are just claims or assertions. Objection boils down to not liking what sources themselves conclude. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the other stuff isn't being discussed here. TarnishedPath^talk 08:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to me like a good candidate for WP:TNT on the basis of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAP. Yes it is a term in use and perhaps if the page was just sub of the first paragraph we wouldn't be having this AfD. But pages are not college essays. So let's delete until someone can write a better page on the topic. JMWt (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this dangerous OR, WP:SYNTH violation. The sources are terrible. This is not simply an essay on a popular concept. This pseudopsych is presented as a behavioral syndrome replete with objective criteria and differential diagnosis when it is no such thing. I am a psychologist (a fact that is easily verified), and I know the dangerous potential of misrepresenting something as a clinical syndrome when it isn't one. Fixing the article would not simply be a matter of deleting the inappropriate sections because all that would be left would barely form a stub. As an admin, I really would like to close this as a delete because the delete !votes make the stronger case and, as people who don't like specific AfD outcomes love to harp on, it is not a vote. However, this has already been relisted too many times, so I feel I should weigh in with my own !vote, and I urge the closing admin to study the arguments and content carefully. At a glance, this may look like no consensus, but consensus is also about the strength of the case. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the relisting admin's noted when they relisted that they were doing so because of "lack of keep rationale". Speaks for itself. I trust the closing admin will look at the quality of the arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 09:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of WP:SYNTH. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎ by nom with no other participation. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kerosene 454

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

The article doesn't cite any sources. I've found plenty of mentions of the band, but the most significant amount of coverage I was able to find was in the June 1997 edition of CMJ.

Edit: Nevermind, I forgot to check AllMusic, which has a biography and staff reviews of two of their releases. toweli (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. toweli (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw AfD. toweli (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎ as a malformed nomination. This appears to be another one of those nominations where the associated article was intended to be nominated, but it was accidentially done on the talk page instead, thereby sending that to AfD. I'll (equally-procedurally) start a proper nomination imminently. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Weekend (Canadian band)

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

Clearly lacking any significant coverage and being non-notable, failing to meet any notability criteria. No reliable sources exist and band is not mentioned except for trivial mentions. Originalcola (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Originalcola (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Board eXpandable

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

Fails WP: N. I cannot find enough sources that are secondary, notable, and cover the subject that could reasonably considered in-depth to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a software database/directory. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carterson

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources are either PRs/promo puffs/Advertorials, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL both primary and independent of the subject. Non-notable musician. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a musician that contains WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, yet WP:ROUTINE. Undoubtedly figured WP:MILL, which can be notable in the future! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Maka

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a New Zealand rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It seems like he has been out of the sport for four years now. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career has never really kicked on, struggling to find sustained coverage of the subject to pass WP:GNG. If any of our NZ editors find anything more detailed, then ping me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caine Woolerton

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

Poorly sourced rugby BLP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything more than trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did not make any professional appearances, no significant coverage, and no longer a professional player so I think it’s very unlikely it will change any time soon. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Career never kicked on to bring sustained coverage to pass WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Davron Cameron

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

Rugby player who played a handful of games. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT as I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 13:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatikuri High School

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

Run-of-the-mill school with no significant coverage in reliable sources, thus failing to meet WP:NORG. Additionally, I am nominating the following pages created by the same user which share the same notability issues:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, India, and West Bengal. GSS ^💬 15:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bundled nomination is going to take a little longer to be sure on. Sonatikuri has a web presence but almost a suspicious lack in other sources. I expect lack of newspaper coverage is down to this being from India, although JSTOR has a single advert for the school in amongst other articles. I wondered if there were alternate names, but the web search suggested this is right. The school has a small staff and I could not find enrolment numbers, but is clearly not large. That one is not looking very notable. Much the same can be said of Sarajubala Vidyapith. Amtala High School, however, has multiple hits in books [1], and this may be through a notable alumnus/alumna. Ultimately none of them may show notability (I see problems with most) but some reading to do there. It also gets a mention in this paper [2] which says There are some renowned educational institutions in Murshidabad district which include Amtala High School. If Amtala were unbundled from this, I would say delete the other two. This might be a good idea, as we want to avoid a WP:TRAINWRECK, which could occur if Amtala really is renowned. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This and Sarajubala Vidyapith school for lack of sourcing. No opinion on Amtala high school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Cousins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; everything else seems to lack any notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports team names and symbols derived from Greek and Roman antiquity

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

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For what it's worth, there is this web article. Daranios (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM, also Wikipedia:Set index articles; no shared characteristic to define inclusion in the list, only the name.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WriterArtistDC. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports teams named Spartans

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

Non-notable grouping that fails to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable grouping -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and of course WP:LISTN. This is trivial. Conyo14 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also Wikipedia:Set index articles; no shared characteristic, only the name.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly trivial. Azuredivay (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Tamura

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think these sources show the subject meets WP:GNG, and certainly that they meet WP:SPORTCRIT. There is enough coverage, especially in the first three examples, that goes beyond routine sports coverage and covers the subject directly.

JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The first two sources linked to by JTtheOG each provide significant coverage of the subject, and as such this meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Zhao

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Canada, and Washington. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources already in the article have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and certainly WP:SPORTCRIT. They go beyond routine sports coverage and cover the subject directly.

JTtheOG (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People 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.
Sources
1. Graham, Doug (2015-01-21). "Zhao doesn't disappoint". The Kingston Whig-Standard. ProQuest 2226503070. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  The article notes: "In her first-ever skate at the Canadian Figure Skating Championships, it almost seemed as if Selena Zhao of Varennes, Que., appeared to come out of nowhere to finish atop the field after Wednesday’s junior women’s short program. Turns out Zhao has indeed been on the up-and-coming radar for budding stars but that was in the United States. Born in Seattle and training in Colorado Springs, Zhao became a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S. over the summer. She also eventually moved into the skating stable of Montreal coach Annie Barabe, who runs a top training centre in Contrecoeur, Que."
2. Slater, Paula (2015-07-04). "Canada's Zhao prepares for senior debutS". Golden Skate. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  The article notes: "While Canadian Junior champion Selena Zhao is looking forward to debuting her senior year on the national level this upcoming season, she is also keeping her fingers crossed for some international opportunities. The 17-year-old started the 2014-15 season well, placing ninth and tenth at her two first Junior Grand Prix (JGP) events. She then captured the junior national title with more than 13 points to spare. ... Moving forward, Zhao, who lives and trains in Colorado Springs, Colo., under Christy Krall and Damon Allen, is working on increasing her physical fitness and staying healthy. ... Zhao, who can speak, read, and write in both English and Chinese, will be a senior this fall at Cheyenne Mountain High School where she is a top student. In her junior year, she won the math gold plaque for having the highest grade in the senior math class for BC Calculus."
3. Graham, Doug (2015-01-24). "Daleman delivers first-place skate in short program". The Kingston Whig-Standard. ProQuest 2226503095.
  The article notes: "Selena Zhao, the Seattle-born skater who has become a dual citizen, easily won the junior title Thursday night. Zhao, who turns 17 in May, nailed her free program just like her short program on Wednesday. She left many believing she will be a contender at the senior level next year."
4. Daybert, Amy (2009-01-06). "Skating like a family proves to be a winning formula for these athletes". The Everett Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  The article notes: "... skater Selena Zhao of Bellevue finished ninth in the final Juvenile Ladies level competition ... Selena Zhao, 10, also has plans to improve her skating through working on her double Axel jump, increasing her foot work and the variety of spins she’s able to perform. She wasn’t expecting her ninth place finish and says when she skates she likes to have fun. ... Lee and Zhao practice their skating elements six days a week and take ballet lessons together on their day off. ... When asked who their favorite figure skater is both Lee and Zhao quickly say Yu-Na Kim."
5. Rutherford, Lynn (2012-09-16). "Zhao delivers first-class program, gold is her due". Ice Network. U.S. Figure Skating. Archived from the original on 2012-09-20. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  The article notes: "A solid triple flip and triple Lutz helped Selena Zhao edge Polina Edmunds in the free skate and win the junior ladies gold at the 2012 U.S. Challenge Skate in Salt Lake City. Zhao, who trains in the Chicago area under Kori Ade, landed four clean triples, including Lutz and Salchow combinations in her free skate to violinist Itzhak Perlman's rendition of selections from the Il Postino: The Postman soundtrack. Two other triples were judged under-rotated by the technical panel, but the 14-year-old still earned 83.93 points to win the free skate and take the title with 128.80."
6. Miller, Shawn (2009-10-10). "Zhou overcomes slippery start at NW Regional". Mail Tribune. Archived from the original on 2017-12-11. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  The article notes: "In one of the most competitive classes, Selena Zhao won a qualifying free skate in the intermediate ladies."
7. "Class of 2022 George J. Mitchell Scholars Announced". US-Ireland Alliance. 2020-11-21. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  The article notes: "Selena Zhao was selected last year for a Mitchell Scholarship, but a sports-related injury resulted in her deferral to the Class of 2022. Selena graduated in May 2020 from Harvard with a degree in Government. As a student, she researched consociationalism and the impact of this form of power-sharing. She has explored the topic in Nigeria, Lebanon, and wrote her senior thesis on the Good Friday Agreement and how it incentivizes the ethnonational divide for political gain. Selena has worked as a research assistant for several Harvard professors and contributed to Professor Steve Levitsky’s bestseller How Democracies Die. In London, she interned with the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, researching a UK centrist platform. She led several model UN organizations for Harvard, including the largest high-school Model UN conference in the South Asian circuit. Before university, Selena was a competitive figure skater for the Canadian International Team and was the 2015 Junior National Champion. She managed and performed at An Evening with Champions, a yearly fundraiser for pediatric cancer research. She will study Conflict Transformation at Queen’s University Belfast."
8. Will, K. Sophie; Kleciak, Lauren; Verbaeke, Abby (2020-04-14). "College Students Share How Coronavirus Has Impacted Their Lives". WBTS-CD. Archived from the original on 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-03.
  The article notes: "Harvard University's Selena Zhao explains how the coronavirus pandemic has impacted her senior year and coursework. Harvard University senior and government student Selena Zhao says that seniors have to find ways to get the closure they would have gotten from events like commencement and senior week on their own terms."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Selena Zhao to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Astro Star Quest. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Koh

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Claim to notability is winning a singing competition in 2003, as well as participating in another in 2014 (WP:REALITYSINGER). Not seeing anything really outside of that, despite apparently releasing 3 albums. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Malaysia. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Astro Star Quest: Standard ATD in the absence of clear evidence of RS (which might need Chinese language sources), and English/Malaysian sources covering his music not found, with his youtube channel numbers indicating against notability. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024. I'm selecting Merge instead of Redirect as it looks like the relevant content has been removed from the target article which would make a Redirect confusing to our readers. This is the consensus I see from reviewing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Sulphur tornado

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

This article was created WP:TOOSOON and has a multitude of structural, grammatical, and factual issues. Common practice in these situations is to first have a smaller section at the outbreak page (Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 in this case) and only expand to an article after official surveys are released and lasting impacts are apparent. This tornado was nothing exceptional or anomalous, as killer EF3 tornadoes are fairly common. United States Man (talk) 17:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024. Sadustu Tau (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed on all points. I am personally in support of deletion.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Move back to draftspace. While there are some critical issues with this article, it does not need to be deleted. if WP:TOOSOON is the issue, then why not move it back to a draft so it can be worked on until it is ready for an article? MemeGod ._. (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge and Redirect, as per Kingsmasher6's rationale. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change back to keep, Scott5114 had some good points relating to Wikipedia:Notability, and this isn't a content fork, as it is quite literally 6+ paragraphs when the summary was one. MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entire article

We already have a section on the Sulphur tornado on the Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25-28, 2024 article page. I agree, this is unnecessary work by user:MemeGod27. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works too, but whether we delete or move to drafts, the main takeaway is please DO NOT make a tornado article like this again until you have the skills, understanding, and know-how to do so. You simply aren't ready for this yet. As I was told when I was in your shoes: "observe more, edit less". Otherwise, it's like trying to drive a motorcycle when you don't have the experience; you're gonna wreck no matter how confident you may feel. That's what happened here. The best thing you can do right now is take a more passive role and focus more on observing how these articles are created, worded, and sourced.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformatoin12[reply]

Move to draftspace. I agree with @MemeGod27, I think the article should be retained in draftspace until the info needed to finish it is released. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge and Redirect. Seems to be a better option, retains the good information, and trims the content. We can always split it back out later if we need to.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024#Sulphur, Oklahoma as an alternative to deletion. The article is in poor quality and the tornado summary could be merged into the mentioned section, since that section mostly lacks a summary of the tornado. The aftermath of the Sulphur tornado could also be placed in the aftermath section of the tornado outbreak sequence article as well. I personally don't think moving this back to draftspace would be a good idea since the article was created too soon; additionally, merging a portion of the article's content to the targeted section would be best. Also opposed to deletion as said above. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 18:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change redirect target to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024. Even though the section was deleted, it wouldn't make sense to delete the article since the outbreak sequence consisted of the Sulphur tornado, which was one of the more significant ones. Redirecting still wouldn't be a bad idea! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 14:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoInformation12 just stop with the lectures. I got it the first 5 times. You don't have to jump on everything I say, and your "constructive talks" are seen as extremely derogatory and full-on harassment by me. I am now stepping away from this, and retaining a NPOV. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for your well-meaning, but this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a reporting site, time should be taken before a decision regarding article-genesis should be made. See WP:WWIN for more details.

Also, I don't think he is lecturing you. I believe many users here aren't emotionally attached to their words and like to vent at others who have edit conflicts with them. Perhaps you ignored his advice and TornadoInformation12 is frustrated, given all he stated was basically "this article is in poor quality, created too soon, learn a few more tips for editing, lets all take a break". Its a valid point. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is honestly exactly why I left. I’m done here and with this article. Thanks :( MemeGod ._. (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 since it is a perfectly suitable target. Might a snow close be possible on this? Even the editor who started the article, and did most of the writing for it, is opting for merging/redirecting. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would second this, if that's an option.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 and merge the content that can be reliably sourced that isn't already on the parent article. This should not receive an article until much more detailed information comes out from the National Weather Service (NWS Norman, for this event) and the tornado itself has lasting notability cited in reliable sources well after it has taken place. I did not support the creation of this article initially because of the heavy usage of preliminary info, lack of information present, and the speculations/personal estimates that the editor used to create the article, and I stand by that opinion. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 20:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find a redirect for a tornado that lasted only 12 minutes and only hit one town, albeit pretty hard, to be unnecessary. In all honesty, I'm about to nuke all 3 of the Oklahoma tornado sections I put in until the NWS Norman puts out more information. This was premature and is yet another example of excessively trying to split individual tornadoes into their own articles. We've recently had other editors coming to us saying that some of our summaries in both sections and articles are too long. We need to be mindful of that for the future or else this is going to get more and more out of hand. ChessEric 00:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024 per points made by ChrisWx. While it does warrant its own section in the article I fail to see how it is more noteworthy than the Elkhorn or Minden tornadoes, or why it should have its own article. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the tornado section. We have redirects for even less significant tornadoes, it’s a viable search term, and WP:CHEAP. 216.165.127.20 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborate. I fail to see how this article is properly informative, noteworthy, and relevant for the Wikipedia tornado projects. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't relevant to whether an article is kept on Wikipedia: see WP:GNG. This tornado has clearly received significant coverage in reliable sources: news9.com (the website of CBS station for Central Oklahoma) has dozens of articles on it addressing the topic directly and in detail. (We used to joke around that Gary England could control the weather, but he's retired now, so KWTV clearly is independent of the article subject.) If the article is not informative, the solution is to edit the article and make it be informative, not faffing about with deletion discussions. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott5114: So you do not believe this is a WP:CONTENTFORK from Tornado outbreak sequence of April 25–28, 2024#Sulphur, Oklahoma? The similar "Elkhorn–Bennington–Blair, Nebraska/Modale, Iowa" is roughly the same length as the article's entire summary section. You haven't mentioned that possibility, so I just wanted to see if you had a more or less direct "Yes" or "no" style answer to the CONTENTFORK idea. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article up for deletion is 2.7 Kib, and the page you've linked seems to contain a one-paragraph summary of it. Unless I'm missing something incredibly obvious or some policy change y'all passed when I wasn't paying attention, that would seem to me to be a proper application of summary style being applied when an article is spun off. I don't think a merge is appropriate at this point, because the nominated article is lengthy enough at this point that coverage of this one storm would overwhelm the article for the outbreak as a whole. (Plus, it would mean that you'd probably have to edit out some of the images and illustrations, all of which are very good—that map of the 5 overlapped tornado warnings is enough to get my blood pumping and I'm 1200 miles away from Sulphur.) —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the images should be kept if we merge or keep.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The section for the Sulphur tornado was deleted by TornadoInformation12, thus redirect is not a viable option. --2600:4808:353:7B01:8EA5:E802:B49B:5924 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Loblaw Companies without prejudice against a (near) future spinoff into a separate article, if WP:LASTING SIGCOV were to support independent notability. Even ignoring the obvious canvassing, arguments on the Merge side were generally more reliant on P&G than the Keep views, with the latter mostly relying on the preponderance of news coverage rather than on its depth or endurance, although the Keep views successfully rebutted the WP:CRYSTAL accusation. Owen× ☎ 20:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Loblaw boycott

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL. A boycott of only about 60 thousand people and probably less will not drastically affect the largest supermarket chain in Canada. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 17:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to argue that I had taken the adequate steps in creating the article in a way that does not treat the situation as if it is acting as a WP:CRYSTALBALL. One could argue that it's nothing more than a boycott that originated from Reddit, but it's absolutely reached far beyond that, otherwise it wouldn't have been making national news, nor would I have created the article in the first place. There's a good amount of sources covering about this topic not only during/near the beginning of the boycott, but in the months leading up to it as well. Additionally pasting this here from what I've previously stated, but this is easily one of the most established consumer boycott movements directly related to the 2021–2023 inflation surge and in the 2020s overall outside of the American conservative-led Bud Light and Target Pride Month boycotts/backlash movements.

Adding on to this, but the only editors who have seen this as potentially being delete-worthy were a number of WP:ITN voters. It's received a passing review as well as a "go" sign by an Administrator on the DYK nomination (with the exception that a QPQ had to be completed). B3251 (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loblaw. Until we actually know the size of this boycott, a separate article is simply not necessary. If it draws 100,000s and has continued coverage over the month, now that's likely something, but it is CRYSTAL to predict how much of a planned boycott (particularly one organized on Reddit) will have. --Masem (t) 02:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loblaw Companies, in a reduced form. Too recent. Almost all of the coverage is from last week. I can't find support for the boycott being reported on prior to 18/4/2024 (although I haven't done WP:BEFORE level searching). I also couldn't find support for the vague suggestion planning started in January 2024.
The Steal from Loblaw thing may or may not be worth merging, but it seems like it's a parallel thing with which the organizers are denying any relationship. Oblivy (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is subject to massive news coverage in Canada; it's on all of the major networks and newspapers, night and day, running for days now. We do not judge notability based on outcome, we base it on coverage, and this passes any bar one might wish to consider for article creation. The arguments above are to the effect of "we don't know the outcome of the protest", but I'm not sure what that is supposed to even mean - we don't know the outcome of the campus protests in the US over Israel's involvement in Palestine, yet there are several articles on that topic and not one has been AfDed. The Loblaws coverage started the same time, so I'm likewise not sure how one can argue it's "too recent" and the other isn't. I'm inclined to SNOW this AfD unless someone can come up with a cogent argument based on actual policy. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the relevant policy is WP:CRYSTAL. All of the cites relating to the boycott are extremely recent. I put a link above to a mid-April day on which a local newspaper reported on the boycott. Maybe there's something earlier, I don't know.
Although not a policy, the article has, in my view, some WP:COATRACK attributes as it puts together (1) allegations against the company (the background section), (2) the history of the reddit group, (3) the boycott and some corporate reaction, and (4) steal from Loblaw. These all fit a theme, which is anti-Loblaw activism (speaking directly, not trying to be provocative), and perhaps that's an article that could be written now. But an article on the boycott itself is too soon for the reason given above. Oblivy (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should not be deleted. The boycott started two days ago and is ongoing for the entire month. The Loblaws boycott is happening nationally and receiving press coverage from various sources. Deleting this article in the midst of the event when it is gaining more traction daily seems like someone is colluding with Loblaws to get more favourable press for their company. Wikipedia is suppose to be independent. The article should stay as it provides valuable information on the Loblaws Boycott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) 13:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Sleeplessjade (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
Please assume good faith. There are three editors who didn't vote for keep, and it is unwise to assume they're all conflict of interest editors. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me directly address your concern: No, I am not related to Loblaw. Neither is anyone who is !voting here (probably). 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 20:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once the boycott ends, the article will serve as a permanent record of its success or failure. Bradlegar the Hobbit (talk)
Comment to closer: This AfD has been posted off-wiki on Reddit, with instructions to vote Keep, see [3] ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the article creator, I apologize for the actions of whoever may have posted this. I didn't make the Reddit post nor do I use Reddit, but this being posted in the community that is an active subject in the article itself causes major WP:BIAS issues with potential votes coming from r/loblawsisoutofcontrol community members rather than editors. B3251 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted again today [4]. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Loblaw Companies, per above. WP:TOOSOON and/or WP:CRYSTAL apply here. It would be a fine section in Loblaw Companies, but not much more. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't really buy the argument that because we don't know how a boycott will work out, we can't have it on Wikipedia. It's clearly very well supported by sources so is notable enough of an event. GraziePrego (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criteria we should use is the notability of the topic, not the possible outcome of the boycott itself. The Wikipedia article already has a quote from François-Philippe Champagne (Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry), and Galen Weston Jr. (chairman of Loblaws), showing that it is creating a response from people in politics and the corporation. This article has 41 news articles cited as of May 5 from a wide range of news sources. The only reason that has been given is the prediction on the success of the boycott, which isn't a normal criteria that Wikipedia considers for deletion. If there is some criteria that is missing, it is recommended that that be better clarified in the discussion, so that the article can be improved, such as through additional citations or editing of the page.DivaNtrainin (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't saying the boycott wont have any effect trying to predict the future itself. It also assume that only members of the sub will participate in the boycott.

We don't know what the effect on the corporation financials will have.

But there's already very big PR damage done. It's on all the news network (both in French and English) and even the president of Loblaw met with one of the organiser. So the event itself is already something tangible and acknowledged by the Loblaw.

It can also be argued that it's a social event of mention in Canada on it's own. Jocoeur (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above two comments do not stand up to longstanding policies that say we should not predict future events, like WP:CRYSTAL. There is no merit to claiming that those voting for merge or delete are predicting the boycott is going to fail. The onus is on those voting keep to offer policy-based arguments that this extremely recent and ongoing event is shown, based on things that have already happened and been reported on in reliable sources, to merit a separate article. Oblivy (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your arguement is a reason to keep the article, not delete it. The fact that this boycott has created a lot of PR and the President of Loblaws (Galen Weston) has met with the organizer gives credence that the boycott is news worthy. There is still uncertainty of the effect of the boycott, but uncertainty by itself is not a reason for deletion. We can tag this as an ongoing event. We can add corporate financials as a separate subsection once they become available, but we shouldn't wait until financials become available to have this article. I have also seen some articles that this has lead to an increase in sales for local and alternative grocers, which is also something we can add to the article. If there is reliable articles regarding a shift in consumers spending, that is just as important as Loblaws bottom line.DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I advocate keeping some of the content but not having a separate page. Noted that several days into the boycott people already extrapolate that it's having an effect, but there are longstanding policies cited above that counsel against including recent events such as this. Oblivy (talk) 01:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. It currently stands alone to have more info than a paragraph in the Loblaws article. If the article does not fill out sufficiently over time through coverage, which it already does have ample coverage, merge into the Loblaws article later on. Otherwise known as - too soon to tell, but currently big enough to warrant it's own article. CaffeinAddict (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems like a reasonably referenced page and providing it sticks to referenced facts rather than conjecture, I'm not seeing how WP:CRYSTAL really applies. Ordinarily we might expect a section of a page to expand and become its own page but it seems like this is already too long to merge back. That said, it does feel that if the boycott turned out to be of limited impact it would be right to severely trim and perhaps merge at that stage. JMWt (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with CRYSTAL arises because the article was created basically at the same time the boycott was launched. As this AfD has ground along it has looked less temporary/speculative. Even today the evidence of impact seems like weak sauce (although I'm sure someone will disagree with me on that).
It's due to be relisted or closed. At this point I'd rather see it closed even if that means keep - as you say, if it turns out to be speculative it can be trimmed or merged. Oblivy (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a very strong consensus not to delete, a somewhat smaller argument for merge, and a fairly strong consensus for keep, at least in the immediate term. As such, I think this is safe to SNOW? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication of any forthcoming input Star Mississippi 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017 Peshawar bombings

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

The 4 sources are from the time of event. No lasting coverage or impact to meet WP:EVENT. Also no deaths reported so WP:NOTNEWS also applies. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Pakistan. LibStar (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (cut down) to Terrorist incidents in Pakistan in 2017. Sources describe it as terrorism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. While the nomination was without merit, several valid Delete views were expressed, but no consensus was reached. Owen× ☎ 14:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foday Sillah

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

The title and status he has earned are not encyclopedic. Redivy (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sport of athletics. Redivy (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is inappropriate to call one of the best athletes from an African nation as "not encyclopedic"; whether we can find the coverage to demonstrate notability, that will be another story. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Sierra Leone. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see coverage about a person with this name, a few hits on a school in The Gambia with this name. Happy to revisit if others can turn up sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nominator needs to familiarize themselves with WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Low effort nominations like this are going to be thrown out whether the subject is notable or not. Sergecross73 msg me 00:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on Sergecross73's comment, Low effort nominations like this are going to be thrown out whether the subject is notable or not. I was able to find a lot of verifiable information about this person that was not mentioned at all in the nominated article or nomination statement, including his exploits at the World U20 championships where he was the highest-placing male Sierra Leonean athlete ever, he was actually a two-time Olympian and not just at the 1992 Olympics, and he has a still-standing national record at 200 metres. Finding contemporary African news reports from this period is difficult, but I believe there is enough evidence here to know that further coverage exists. --Habst (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The information can often, as well as in this case, be found via What Links Here. It still needs non-database sources Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I don't think anyone, besides maybe some people who are already editors, looks up people without articles here and then finds and clicks "what links here" to find information about them. A standalone article is much more beneficial to readers, as that way we get both the bare information one would get from a table-link-mention and plenty of other interesting, additional details explained with context. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, thanks for bringing this up. Not all of the information could be found via What Links Here, for example the fact that Sillah's World U20 performance was the best by any Sierra Leonean. Also, if the article were to be deleted, the standard practice is then that any links to the article would be un-linked per WP:REDLINK ("Red links should not be made to articles deleted because the topic was judged unencyclopedic or lacking notability"), meaning that Special:WhatLinksHere would be useless (text searches are not reliable because they could include people with the same name) and much of this structured data would essentially be lost to history. --Habst (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 My point was about using What Links Here for nominators (and other editors). The reason why Lugnuts' articles were so horrible, was that they typically mention competing in a single Olympic event, where the athlete's career often had much more longevity. Geschichte (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ordinarily, I'd close this AFD as a procedural Keep due to the lack of a valid deletion rationale but we do have an opinion to Delete this article so I'm relisting to see if editors can come up with additional sourcing to demonstrate that this subject is "encyclopedic".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as the article stands today it seems enough for the article to not be deleted. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination statement notwithstanding, not a single source with significant coverage has been located. Sillah wasn't that high-ranking as an athlete that we can jettison the demand for sources because we think WP:ITSINTERESTING. Geschichte (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, there is no deadline for Wikipedia. I believe the info we know about Sillah is conclusive that coverage must exist of him based on his accomplishments making him the best in his country, but it's a matter of having access to the African sources from the 90s that would have covered him. Scans of these may become available in 1, 10, or 20 years – that's why WP:NEXISTS is a policy, to allow for time to get the sources. But saying to drafty in this case is essentially saying to delete the article in 6 months, because most drafts are abandoned. What do you think? --Habst (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was responding to an older version of the reply that was a draftify vote. It was edited to Comment after I started writing my reply. --Habst (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Habst, I think there is a good reason why the rule about coverage was added. The days when articles could be built solely on databases and primary sources are over, we have to face that. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, thank you, which rule are you referring to? I am open to deleting this and any other page based on a rule, but I just can't see what is being violated. I've edited Wikipedia both before and after WP:NSPORTS2022, and it does not invalidate WP:NEXIST. Respectfully, --Habst (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NEXIST = grasping at straws. You personally think there are lots of significant coverage about this and that person, but that doesn't make it true and how likely it is varies a lot. For a person like Nikolay Antonov, it was overwhelmingly likely, but here - with the highlights being an U20 performance and a slow indoor record - it is nowhere near as likely. Geschichte (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, thanks for your perspective because I think the challenge is important. NEXIST isn't grasping at straws; the idea that we can know that coverage exists based on depth of accomplishments is the entire basis of subject-specific notability guidelines existing. Yes, it was used successfully on Nikolay Atanasov, but it has also been used successfully in other cases such as Abdou Manzo, understanding that Sillah's 200m record (1069 pts) is actually better than Manzo's record (924 pts).

Also, I think that the subject is being sold short on likeliness of coverage. Sillah was, at a time, the best sprinter in Sierra Leone, a country of 8 million people. In order to be selected for all these international teams, he had to have won some sort of national championship or proven himself on the national level. The likelihood that there is no contemporary coverage of this person existing in the world is, in my opinion, impossible. --Habst (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, every country in the world has 50 national champions every year for men and women. Not all of them get coverage. Mind exercises "in your world" about what ought to exist are not something Wikipedia can base itself upon. Do you even know whether Sierra Leone was able to arrange national championships during a brutal civil war? I think you do not. Geschichte (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, let's try to work this out together and come to an agreement. There's a difference between being a national champion, and being the fastest or strongest person from a country at a given time – the former is far more arbitrary than the latter. The results from Sillah prove that he was the fastest from his country for a decent stretch of time, representing Sierra Leone at several international competitions and setting a national record. Where there actually was a formal national championship is irrelevant in determining that fact.

During war-time, athletes representing countries usually receive outsized coverage, not the other way around – for example see the substantial coverage for Ukranian athletes like [5] [6] [7], not to mention the Tigray War during which several Ethiopian athletes received coverage recently. Based on this evidence, we can conclude that coverage exists, and the task of finding it up to us now. --Habst (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of articles from the US are not "evidence" for anything. If enlarged coverage during wartime is a universal tenet, where are the articles in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and San Diego Union Tribune - or any newspaper from a developed country - about Foday Sillah? Geschichte (talk) 05:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte, the articles are evidence of coverage in that specific case.

where are the articles in the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and San Diego Union Tribune – I agree, I think that's the question we should be asking. We have enough evidence to conclude such articles do exist, somewhere.

Remember that often times athletes have one name on Wikipedia but were covered under another name at the time. This happened in the case of "Samuel Nchinda-Kaya", which was nearly deleted unanimously until I was able to find that the subject actually used a different name. Maybe that's the case here, or maybe the articles haven't been scanned into newspaper databases yet. It might take one, ten, or one hundred years to find them, but the basis of notability guidelines existing is to allow us the time to keep and improve the article in the mean time. --Habst (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as no accurate deletion rationale has been presented by the nominator. No qualms with someone else renominating this one with a stronger rationale. Let'srun (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nival (company)#Technology. A few more participants at AFD and this discussion wouldn't have needed to be relisted three times. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma Engine

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

Video game engine used in a handful of games circa 2003. No actual coverage whatsoever. My redirect was correctly undone as it is not mentioned in the target article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Software. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one is very cut and dry – I found nothing from reliable sources about the subject itself and I think anything that is found could easily be incorporated into the Blitzkrieg video game article that this engine seems to have been created for. Nothing in book searches as well (where you'll commonly find coverage of this kind of thing). Nomader (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nival (company)#Technology as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again or delete: The features description is hardly encyclopedic and the one source is an interview. IgelRM (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nival (company)#Technology. toweli (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Abductors (1972 film)

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

Movie fails to meet General Notability Guideline, No award or nominations has the movie receive. Also note should be taken that IMDb is not considered a reliable source for proving notability.The only source for this movie is https://www.nytimes.com/1972/01/29/archives/the-screenthe-abductors-begins-run-at-the-demille.html. No other source can be found on Google. Meligirl5 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Theatre. Meligirl5 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheri Caffaro. Added things.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your valid point for your vote. You just said keep and see also to an actress who isn’t also notable. I see your contribution to this movie article but it still doesn’t clear the point why it was nominated for an AFD. You just copied the statement from the only news I pointed out and make that a “About” of the movie. I really don’t know what you have been doing on AFD discussion but after reading this I felt Liz is right.--Meligirl5 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing: I just copied the statement from the only news (you) pointed out and make that a “About” of the movie....not sure I understand everything you say but ...really? That NYT article was added yesterday (23:30 GMT) to the article about the actress....by me.....as you evidently know since you commented on that edit. But you're welcome. As for the rest, no comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Meligirl5 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now has reviews from The New York Times and The Baltimore Sun. Toughpigs (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Baltimore Sun is a dead link affter clicking on it. It doesn’t show anything. --Meligirl5 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 I've fixed the Baltimore Sun link. Skynxnex (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great. Meligirl5 (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't added these to the article since I'm not 100% sure how to integrate them and there's enough for a keep, but Sight and Sound had a one paragraph review 10 picks from the grindhouse (paywalled but wiki library can see it) and Canadian Newspapers Limited Partnership (looks like that a wire service-y thing) has a couple sentence review of it for the DVD release The Abductors (paywalled as well). Skynxnex (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skynxnex, I can't see these articles, but if you add the author name, date of publication, title and url, ping me, summarizing what the ref says about the film, and I'll happily review your links, add the info and help with formatting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssilvers I think I added the main bit for the DVD release (other than maybe this bit but feels undue "If you thought Lord of the Rings was the ultimate film trilogy, you evidently haven't heard of the three early '70s films ".) Searching a bit i found that the Sight and Sound article is actually publicly available at http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/49375 and the full ref to the magazine if you choose to use that instead of the bfi site info is "10 picks from the grindhouse", London https://www.proquest.com/indexingvolumeissuelinkhandler/40577/Sight+and+Sound/02007Y06Y01$23Jun+2007$3b++Vol.+17+$286$29/17/6?accountid=196403 Vol. 17, Iss. 6, (Jun 2007): 25-27. Skynxnex (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film was reviewed by the New York Times and made over $2 million at the box office. Britfilm (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the existing reviews such as NY Times.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking at the reviews section, sourcing is good. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of press coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Reading Beans 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulquawiy Abdulganiyu Olododo

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

Fails WP:NPOL obviously and WP:GNG. Current sources are either PRs or passing mentions. Nothing gives WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable politician or "serial entrepreneur". Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article of an entrepreneur that doesn't meet GNG. The sources is not anyway SIGCOV. I don't want to talk about WP:NPOL, it doesn't make sense repeating known WP:MILL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per WP:POLOUTCOMES - Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. See WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NSUBPOL. See previous consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Sani Idriss and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa to mention a few. Shoerack (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shoerack, I agree with you here but NSUBPOL, etc are just secondary criteria. I can't find any reasonable source of meeting GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'do see some sources! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If I can now find reasonable source to say this article is a commissioner of Nigeria, then, he is notable. Thanks Shoerack for bringing this. However, will need clean up to remove unreliable source.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After critical look at this, looks notable based on NPOL, but would require cleanup for deceptive language like supervising commissioner which does not exist in Nigeria. I’d withdraw this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Girolamo

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

Notability not established. Just a bunch of small roles, mostly in projects that aren't notable. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 15:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. very weak news coverage. One source is interview, another IMDB. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Palau Soccer League as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Stars F.C.

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

Only has two sources, both from the same website and neither being enough for notability. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Islands. Skynxnex (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. --ときさきくるみ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 16:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palau Soccer League. Svartner (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Palau Soccer League. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon FC (Palau)

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

Article relies entirely on a single source Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Islands. Skynxnex (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palau Soccer League. JTtheOG (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per @JTtheOG. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palau Soccer League per my deprod suggestion. ~Kvng (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎ as per the request of established editors which also preserves attribution for any future merges or restoration Star Mississippi 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Kingdoms overthrown due to Muslim conquests

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

Fancruft-esque POV article backed by author's original research and synthesis of different sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. Can't agree that this is made up by the synthesis of sources, as most of the list-type article exists similar way. As the author, I do agree that it appears in an abnormal way, and that can be overcome by copyediting. The idea of the article indeed notable.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 10:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent per WP:ATD; that page is over 12,600 words already, so any merge would be unhelpful for page length. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources in article and child articles show this subject has been discussed as a group meeting NLIST and it serves a navigation purpose for readers meeting WP:CLN. A merge would not improve either the content here or the target. I think this is an appropriate SUMMARYSTYLE split from Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent. If there are issues with the content, they can be cleaned up on the article talk page; any POV issues can be handled with cn and fv tags rather than afd. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally based on original research WP:OR and synthesis WP:SYNTH of different sources, which isn't allowed in wikipedia. Moreover, this is a fan page.

Based Kashmiri (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure trivia, xenophobic and full of WP:OR. I am sure we are not creating a List of Indian Kingdoms regained by Indians after Muslim conquests. ❯❯❯Pravega^g=9.8 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the mention of "Muslim" in the title triggers concern, I wouldn't object to substituting it with "Foreign." This adjustment would certainly broaden the article's scope, potentially addressing concerns about it being considered xenophobic (or the "Indian"). Never knew personal feelings are taken as a valid rise. Regarding original research, it seems that most list-type articles here follow a similar format; moreover, each entry appears to be properly cited, doesn't it?Imperial ^[AFCND] 12:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The concept of the page is based on WP:OR. What really constitutes as "Muslim conquests"? Was religious motive really involved in all these conquests? Is it really correct to generalize that whole period as the period of "Muslim conquests"? I don't think so. Suggested title change won't address it. CharlesWain (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant but asking if the same could be applied on Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent and List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent? I've asked about such naming in the talk section of Talk:List of early Hindu–Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent, and none was interested to involve in it. Imperial ^[AFCND] 17:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks more like a fan page than a Wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonharojjashi (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:OR. A broad brush cannot be used for paintaining a very long period of history as mere "Muslim conquests" unless there are scholarly sources but they don't exist in this case. >>> Extorc.talk 11:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado: the above delete votes are IDONTLIKEIT nonsense. Don't worry about this discussion, the article clearly meets WP:CLN and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, even if it needs work.
Note to closer: If you intend to close as delete, I request a courtesy Draft on behalf of @ImperialAficionado: to preserve the contributor history. If you are not willing to do this, please WP:REFUND to Imperial's userspace (or mine) after deletion.

Thanks, // Timothy :: talk 13:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on this. Imperial ^[AFCND] 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 21:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tharahai Cuthbert

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

Fails WP:NPOL (for now) and WP:GNG, the subject is only a candidate of an assembly election that is to come, hopefully, in July. She is yet to be elected, we don't even know if she'd be. So, for now, it fails WP:NPOL and also WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Draftifying would also not be a bad idea. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject's achievements and of role as a candidate of a political party is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There has been a notable increase in the creation of Wikipedia pages for candidates in the 2024 Indian General elections. However, many of these pages fail to adhere to Wikipedia’s Politician notablity guidlines WP:NPOL or the general notability guideline WP:GNG. Merely being nominated as a candidate and having some media coverage does not automatically make someone notable. Additionally, creating articles for these candidates at this early stage is premature. According to Wikipedia's notability policy for politicians WP:NPOL, candidates who win the election and become Members of Parliament will inherently meet the criteria for notability. Therefore, it is recommended that these premature articles be deleted, this article is same as previous AFDs: Kompella Madhavi Latha, Neeraj Tripathi. Grabup (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 20:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chioma Rowland

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. She is only known for being the wife of Davido. She does not have a notable modeling or chef career. This article is pretty much WP:PROMO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO, COI oozing right on this one. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Written like an autobiography, the article is basically just WP:PROMO. BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BerryForPerpetuity Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BerryForPerpetuity and per WP:NOTINHERITED. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject seems to have received coverage mostly due to her marital status/relation to a famous singer. She's not a notable/famous chef, nor a known model, and can be dubbed as a social media influencer only due to her relationship with her husband. X (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Property Finder

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

Quite frankly, the sources are: company SPIP (not even about the company, just quotes about the market); more SPIP; SPIP about one of their events; more investor relations/market data; announcement of publicity initiative; funding announcement; interview; interview; more interview; funding; more funding; even more funding; product announcement; M&A; another M&A. In other news, more market predictions, more routine announcements.

What's missing: Any semblance of any coverage anywhere close to meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. It seems impossible that this article would become anything other than an investor relations brochure. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, Middle East, and United Arab Emirates. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K.S. Hamza

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is no reference to winning an election or being in a position of power in another party to qualify as a political activist WP:POLITICIAN ~ Spworld2 (talk) 2:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 2:39, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won already — but this makes no claim that the subject has preexisting notability for any other reason. Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins, but just standing as a candidate is not in and of itself grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 21:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom, Saint Petersburg

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

Lacking secondary sources specifically about the consulate. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, Russia, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep. It's relevant to the wider history of UK - Russia relations. Notable because it was forced to close. Cantab12 (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional links was added now. WildStranger (talk) 12:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiling the Wealthy Legacy of Sindh's Culture and Traditions

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

This is not an article, it is a travel-brochure version of Culture of Sindh. Judging from the opening paragraph, this seems to be the result of the original editor's misconception that Wikipedia is a blog-hosting site. The article is entirely sourced to other Wikipedia articles and two sources borrowed from Culture of Sindh. The title is not useful as a redirect, so that doesn't seem like a good option. —ShelfSkewed Talk 12:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to Culture of Sindh. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 17:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant, not a useful redirect, and it looks like little worthwhile to merge. Skynxnex (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soura Nath

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly recreated article on an Indian photographer. Already deleted at a previous AfD in 2021. No significant claim of notability. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a copypaste move of the rejected Draft:Soura Nath, which in itself is problematic. I also suspect some COI issues, and queried this three weeks ago but so far without any response. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, needless to say, for zero evidence of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Maharashtra, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the refs are notability lending. Given this was previously deleted via AfD and the author's many attempts to post the rejected drafts directly into the mainspace, the namespace should likely be WP:SALTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person is already notable on internet.Phantomphoto1 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. and per nom fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all relevant information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomphoto1 (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jade Cargill. Target can be refined as needed. ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baddies (professional wrestling)

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

Article is little more than a brief plot summary which just duplicates information in each member's individual page. — Czello ^(music) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. — Czello ^(music) 07:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just another temporary/RNG stable by AEW. Baddies did not achieve anything. Cargill was a champion before the Baddies storyline. AEW and its sister ROH created many similar stables; e.g. Trustbusters. But since Baddies were part of Cargill's career, redirect it to Jade Cargill#All Elite Wrestling (2020–2023). The redirect has the potential to become an article again if AEW/ROH revives the stable. --Mann Mann (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to Jade Cargill. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poles killed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, that Poles have been killed (and their number) can be mentioned on a general page about the role of Poland in the event, but a list of the individuals that died is no more warranted than lists of people who died in airplane crashes (or e.g. WWII). Fram (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Military, Poland, Russia, and Ukraine. Fram (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already other lists on Wikipedia of foreign volunteers who have been killed in various conflicts throughout history Salfanto (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many sources this article uses are unsuitable, such as Twitter and Facebook. I can't vouch for some of the Polish sources, as my familiarity with Polish media is limited. I can't see from the sources whether or not these volunteers are notable for anything other than having died in Ukraine either. If so, they should be mentioned on a different page. However, I'm not sure which one. Maybe International Legion (Ukraine)? Cortador (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Some OR concerns, sure. Does it meet NLIST? There is some media coverage discussing more than one person (so, group - a list) that may suffice for NLIST: [8] (Gazeta Wyborcza), [9] (pl:dziennik.pl), [10] (defence24.pl, no wiki article yet, but IMHO notable). And there is also coverage of related fake news that should be mentioned in the article ([11]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered by media sources, lessens the conflict's main casualties article size by branching out. Self-published sources can be replaced with mainstream ones/RS. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needed more work. Low tier sources or unreliable removed, added reliable Polish and Ukrainian sources. Is easy and lazy to call for a deletion of a page because you dont find 3 or 4 RS. Instead the OP should ask for help. Thats all.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyansa Bantay Kapayapaan at Demokrasya

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

Too soon. It's a newly formed group that has a couple of mentions, but is far from notable at this stage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs sustained coverage. Otherwise this might be as notable as a Janet Lim-Napoles NGO. Borgenland (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bamburgh Castle Lifeboat Station

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

No evidence of notability from reliable sources, the available sources are the publications of a lively hobby club. The station was relatively shortlived and nothing remarkable happened during these years. The main source, by Jeff Morris, has not received any attention at all[12] and is basically, as far as can be determined, a self-published booklet or brochure[13] Fram (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and England. Fram (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :As author of this page, I am saddened that it has been noted for deletion.
I accept that the main problem is the lack of source material, and that I have only one primary source. The station was only open for 15 years, and nobody was rescued, so there is little reason for other sources of information to exist; no newspaper reports of gallant rescues, no medal reports, etc.

But I refute the Notability claim, something which has been discussed with Fram, and in lack of response, thought he had agreed.

As discussed earlier with Fram...

The page is primarily referenced to the work of Mr Jeff Morris. An independent and enthusiastic man who dedicated most of his life to recording and documenting UK lifeboat stations, visiting them all, and recording in detail, every rescue, award, and lifeboat infrastructure, boats, buildings etc etc, before his death only a couple of years ago.

He also worked closely with the RNLI Heritage Team, with access to all their documents, and with Barry Cox, who documented all the RNLI medal awards. There are no finer reference works, and to say it is not useful for notability is quite frankly insulting. There is nothing anywhere else that comes close. His work is absolutely an independent source of some repute.

Jeff Morris didn't work for the RNLI, he was independent. He produced and funded booklets of his work, which he usually made available at the respective lifeboat station for them to sell and help raise much needed funds to run the service. Within the "small hobby club" of 2000 members that is the Lifeboat Enthusiasts Society, the booklets are treated as gospel. Does it need someone to have a proper published book with ISBN to be regarded as notable??

Bamburgh Castle Lifeboat Station is an innocuous page, it's not causing grief to anyone, it just presents the facts of Bamburgh Castle Lifeboat Station, few as they are. Even the old station building still exists. The station was one link in a whole chain of lifeboat stations, and just because it was only open for 15 years, with not much happening, doesn't make it any less valid than any of the other former stations.

I respectfully request that consideration for deletion is declined.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is part of a body of such former lifeboat station articles, all geographically notable. It doesn't need to be deleted just because nothing remarkable happened. There are plenty of other places like that. Perhaps a wider search (e.g. British Newspaper Archive) would supply further sources. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "geographically notable" supposed to mean? Populated places (towns, villages...) are supposed to be notable, things like rivers or mauntains as well. But fire stations, police stations, libraries, ... are not automatically notable, and I see no reason to treat lifeboat stations any differently. Fram (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Fram
  
  I don't know where you are in the world, but I'm assuming not in the UK?
  
  People in the UK are mostly very proud of the volunteers of the RNLI, an independent organisation, who will risk all to save lives at sea.
  
  As a result, many folks visiting the coast will make a point of seeking out both current and former lifeboat stations, to pay their respects to the work that is/was done there. Something that they don't necessarily do for a police station or library.
  
  MartinOjsyork (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - But which, even if true, has nothing to do with being "geographically notable". Fram (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable station as it was the location for Lionel Lukin's original lifeboat and long-thought to be the first lifeboat station in the country. I've also added some additional citations from earlier sources so it is not so reliant on Jeff Morris's work. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Goodness gracious, no one arguing for keep is making policy-based arguments here, so I will. The Morris booklet is WP:SELFPUBLISHED and all the Life-boat citations are to WP:TRADES and all are ineligible to establish notability. However, there are other independent sources that should be added to the article and that validate notability per GNG: Leach, Alexander and Kelly, Drower and Ainslie, and this BBC item. That should be sufficient. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other than Dclemens1971 contribution, the other keep arguments are very, very weak. For example, just because articles exist on other lifeboat stations does not establish notability. The lifeboat station is not a geographic place as asserted above. Is each and every police and fire station individually notable? There's more than 1300 fire stations in England alone. There's many tens of thousands in India - they aren't all individually notable. "People in the UK are mostly very proud of the volunteers of the RNLI" is also irrelevant to notability - people are usually proud of firefighters, too. Doesn't make every fire station individually notable. The fact it is an "innocuous page, it's not causing grief to anyone" is true but also not relevant. It would be good if we could actually get some sourcing analysis to understand if the sourcing is sufficient to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Keep) MUCH has been done to improve and re-edit the page in the last day or so. I would hope that the page now meets its Notability criteria. So lets not judge the page on what has been said so far, in my case maybe said with enthusiastic passion and not so objectively, and judge the page on its current state please.

MartinOjsyork (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been improved with more sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per HEY. The improvements puts it above the GNG thresholds now. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copa América Centenario broadcasting rights

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yohanna Bako

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Sources are either song releases, PRs, promo puff from primary sources, or clearly not independent of the subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - graduate assistants are basically never considered under WP:PROF guidelines, so we're looking at GNG or NMUSICIAN. I don't see a pass there. Guardian.ng seems to publish press releases as is under their name. If it were a real story, it would count towards notability, but real news stories don't end with "Dr. Yohan and TAP are thrilled to share this masterpiece with the world." -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOO SOON. WP:SIGCOV is yet to be seen. Best, Reading Beans 09:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond College, Murray State University

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

Subject is not independently notable - notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization. ElKevbo (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a proud MSU alum and former president of Elizabeth Residential College, I can't imagine any of the colleges being independently notable. The only exception might be Hester College because of the tragic fire there, but even then, it would probably be an article about the fire itself, not the residential college. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regents College, Murray State University

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

Subject is not independently notable - notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization ElKevbo (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a proud MSU alum and former president of Elizabeth Residential College, I can't imagine any of the colleges being independently notable. The only exception might be Hester College because of the tragic fire there, but even then, it would probably be an article about the fire itself, not the residential college. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hester College, Murray State University

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

Subject is not independently notable - notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization. ElKevbo (talk) 11:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a proud MSU alum and former president of Elizabeth Residential College, I can't imagine any of the colleges being independently notable. This one might have been, because of the tragic fire there, but that's not even mentioned in this article! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clark College, Murray State University

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

Subject is not independently notable - notability is not inherited from its unquestionably notable parent organization ElKevbo (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a proud MSU alum and former president of Elizabeth Residential College, I can't imagine any of the colleges being independently notable. The only exception might be Hester College because of the tragic fire there, but even then, it would probably be an article about the fire itself, not the residential college. I will say that I'm impressed with someone's record-keeping to know all the faculty heads and RCC presidents since the residential college model's inception! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople with martial arts records

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

Could not find any reliable coverage of the overall topic. Appears to fail NLIST. At current, the page is a trivial list of names without much in the way of valuable information, so if sourcing is found then it will need an overhaul. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't understand to goal of this list and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references to this topic, seems to be original research. Article creator erroneously seems to thing martial arts and mixed martial arts are the same thing. For example, every boxer has a martial arts record since boxing is a martial art. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Philippine films of 2022#October–December. Closing as redirect per consensus. History is preserved under redirect, which can be used to expand the target in future, if required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security Academy (film)

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

I'm being frank extremely here, this article about a film doesn't meet out inclusion criteria for films per WP:NFILM. The sources aren't reliable except for two which doesn't meet the guidelines for verifiability per WP:SIGCOV. Same as that, the film have not done any significant thing and no review from reliable notable reviewers. If sources are found, pls ping me though I found none. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Philippine_films_of_2022#October–December (where it is listed; just added a ref there).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with that! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Philippine_films_of_2022#October–December per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: Added references to the "Release" section. LionFosset (talk) 08:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't cover WP:SIGCOV. This can meet the criteria in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curran Oi

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even before performing a WP:BEFORE search, I think the sources already in the article pass WP:GNG and certainly WP:SPORTCRIT. I added the last example to the fold.

JTtheOG (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyon Jong-hyok

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by James Harden

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

Another list of primarily indiscriminate trivia, which is a WP:NOTSTATS violation. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For reference, there's recent NBA-related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of career achievements by Larry Bird, 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.—Bagumba (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyen Wong

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Cuba, United States of America, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports teams nicknamed Titans

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

This is a grouping not discussed elsewhere, and fails to meet the criteria set by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. Especially when high school teams were brought up, and then even middle school. Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable grouping -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also Wikipedia:Set index articles; no shared characteristic, only the name.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A perfect example of WP:FANCRUFT. Svartner (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:OR, and trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 03:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Warriors

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

No evidence of notability, no indepth references about the team, apparently unknown whether they even played a full season, and claims about becoming the Dayton Jets unsourced and unverifiable[14]. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Ice hockey, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references to the page. The claim of them becoming the Dayton Jets comes from the main page Continental Hockey League (1972–1986) though where that was sourced from, or if its even accurate, I don't know.PensRule11385 (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The added references don't support the notability of the subject, and it is very hard even to argue in favor of notability if there aren't even sources verifying the team's record. This should be redirected to the main Continental league article. Ravenswing 12:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - team record was in the Decatur paper. Received decent amount of coverage in it. I’ve looked at it before, but can’t now as newspapers.com is temporarily inaccessible through the Wikipedia Library. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to shift my view to keeping if actual sources providing significant coverage are cited. Ravenswing 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While newspapers.com brings up many fairly WP:Routine mentions: ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]), I think it is worth noting that these are all out of town newspapers, and unlikely to report anything in depth on a one year team that was a bottom dweller of the league. I am unable to find a good archive of The Courier (Findlay), which leads me to believe that WP:SIGCOV is likely to exist, but is not easily accessible. But obviously, that assertion on its own doesn't hold much weight, and I'm not willing to definitively say it does. IceBergYYC (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

War on I-4 (arena football)

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:NRIVALRY. The current sources are primarily from press releases and a search for sources fails to come up with much more than mere mentions from individual games. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some decent coverage from the Orlando Sentinel, e.g. [22] [23] and [24]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any coverage from non-local sources? Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Another source: [25] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Considering the sources identified above, I see GNG satisfied. Zsinj^Talk 02:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No consensus to delete or redirect. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kunguma Kodu

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

Yet one of many articles created in a spree by Rajeshbieee in violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. Although this film has a notable hero, I can't find third-party sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 10:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Tamil films of 1988. Simple search did not show any reliable sources with any coverage enough to warranty a page. Film can be viewed on YouTube and we know it is there but reliable sources are not available. This is mostly the case with less known or forgotten films. The sources on the page do not have any coverage and are unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to V. Azhagappan#Filmography: or to the list mentioned. Not opposed to keep if sources are presented (opposed to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: The article is still undersourced, but kudos to Srivin for adding more sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed the refs added and they don't support notability. They are just listings or such. Desertarun (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an unusual AFD discussion as the nomination has been withdrawn but there is more support for Deletion than Keeping the article. Please review recent improvements to the article that have occurred over the past two days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for an evaluation of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still under discussion? I already said withdraw, per WP:HEY. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the withdrawal, there are extant deletion !votes. Personally I'd have closed it with another week having passed without input but a relist is a viable call. Star Mississippi 02:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If the consensus isn't "keep", then "redirect" is better. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash29792, there is also more than one redirect target article suggested which might result in a No consensus closure. Closers shouldn't be deciding which target article is more appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004

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

As far as I can tell, this law has virtually no coverage anywhere. Fails WP:GNG completely. Only references are primary sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. The Act, also called CAICE, has significant coverage in many books and periodical articles in Google Books, Google Scholar, Internet Archive and HeinOnline. There is significant commentary on the Act in Halsbury's Statutes and Current Law Statutes [26]. That commentary, some of which is already cited in the article, is certainly an independent secondary source. This Act is, amongst other things, the law relating to community interest companies (CICs), which law is Part 2 of this Act, and the same thing as this Act. Accordingly, there are entire books about this Act: [27] ("Law . . . of Community Interest Companies"), and many entire periodical articles about this Act. James500 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the citations cover this specific act, they only seem to cover the more general field Community Interest Companies and seem to only mention this act in passing as a source for some of the information about the field. WP:GNG requires coverage, not citation. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halsbury and Current Law are entirely about this Act, and they are a commentary on the Act. Likewise Bishop's book contains extensive commentary on the Act. An Act is not a source of information. An Act is the law. To use your terminology, the Act is "the field". Those sources, and the many other books are not just "citations". You might as well claim that a book review was "just a citation" of the book being reviewed. James500 (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more importantly, both Halsbury and Current Law (and other sources) also include extensive commentary on Parts 1 and 3 of the Act, which have nothing to do with CICs. So this article is not redundant to the article on CICs. Even Part 2 of the Act is not completely redundant to the topic of CICs generally (at least as opposed to the law of CICs), since that topic includes all non-legal aspects of CICs (such as the companies themselves, statistical information about them, and the economic and social implications of them). Part 2 is independently notable of CICs generally when you consider the number of non-legal sources that discuss CICs. James500 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Voorts: The policy WP:RELIST says ". . . relisting should not be a substitute for a no consensus closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive discussion, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, but consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable" and "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors. Therefore, repeatedly relisting discussions merely in the hope of getting sufficient participation is not recommended. In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should write a short explanation either within the relist template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result." Therefore please provide the required "short explanation", or just close the AfD yourself, or allow it to be closed by someone else. James500 (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr. I see a rough consensus to Merge this article with the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martyr (politics)

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

Low quality article. Parent article Martyr already clarifies in the first sentence that the word may have a non-religious meaning. I propose a merge of this article to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr and/or Martyr#Revolutionary martyr. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Religion. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [28]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [29] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [30]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [31] [32]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is known as a bold edit; bold edits are encouraged on Wikipedia. I did say I was doing it on the talk page, per your link, and nobody had any objection. After eight years, I think we can say that WP:Silence and consensus applies. If consensus now changes, so be it. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Low quality article" is not a valid reason for deletion. Had you done a BEFORE, you might have seen titles such as Martyrs in the Making: Political Martyrdom in Late Medieval England, Politics of Death: The Cult of Nazi Martyrs, 1920-1939, Imre Nagy, Martyr of the Nation, or Heroes, Martyrs, and Political Messiahs in Revolutionary Cuba, 1946-1958. The article clearly fulfils GNG. --Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see no need to have separate articles for people martyred for religious reasons and people martyred for political reasons since the term still has the same meaning of persecution. The main martyr article still includes a number of political and other non-religious related examples, so if there's actually a distinction to be made, the split should be done more clearly. The book titles above can still be used in the main article. The main page has 30 times the viewers as this page, so why make readers go through another link for the full concept when length is not an issue? Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you that there should be a clearer split. Any mention of political martyrdom, including the Revolutionary martyr section, should be moved out of the Martyr article to this one, and just have a hatnote on the Martyr article pointing to this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - in sum, I don't see anything with the information, which is all factual and correct. The biggest problem is that it's sort of a fork. A lesser issue to finding appropriate sources, but simple internet searches would help. I will defer to others who might decide whether and where to merge this, or alternatively, to fix it. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Did you men to say you don't see anything wrong with the information? Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I don't see anything wrong with it. Typo. I'm leaning'merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per arguments above. The article seems to cite nothing to establish that 'political Martyrs' are an independent topic. Instead, it consists of a few examples that the article creators think the term applies to. This is particularly problematic when applied to contexts where events in non-English-speaking countries are being described, since as the martyr article notes, terms translated to 'martyr' may be applied much more broadly than is generally understood through normal English usage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, I'd have to suggest that there are obvious problems with neutrality involved. Generally speaking, people tend to be described as martyrs by those who share similar views - and Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting such subjectivity as if it was objective fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOK Foundation

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

Normally articles like this do come with sources published by PR, and related. Firstly, the article doesn't meets an entry for WP:ORGCRIT. The article told us its based only or per sources, they only practice in Offs, Nigeria, perhaps a local community in Kwara State.

In general, I was looking for a redirect but both the founder and organisation seems to lack credible WP:SIGCOV where one activity is taken or published by one newspaper or there. I can term this WP:ROUTINE. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Hates Jimmy

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

Article exclusively edited by the comic's author. Two of the four sources here do not seem to work, and the remaining few seem to be at best, unreliable media sources. It doesn't even have a books entry. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forestville Hockey Club

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

Although this club has existed since 1905, I could not find significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. There's incidental local coverage from The Advertiser but nothing indepth to be WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also WP:AUD applies in this case. LibStar (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B. Wishart

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO. The only coverage online is one New York Times article about his death. Clear friend a ^💬 00:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. NYT obituary. Profile in Chilton's Iron Age. Profile in Minneapolis Star Tribune. Significant coverage in Honeywell news items such as [33][34] and [35][36]. Jfire (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by Jfire (and other RS available on archive.org). Definitely passes GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources exist (if harder to find from the early 20th century); agree that it meets GNG. Klbrain (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets notability guidelines WP:GNG. Waqar💬 19:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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