Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 11

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liz (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 18 May 2024 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Lahore (1800) (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< May 10 May 12 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Shtein

Lucy Shtein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too small and insignificant Russian politician and activist. Significance according to WP:POLITICS is not observed.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Politics, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article in the Economist (cited on the article) is extended coverage of Shtein. I also find mentions of her in the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Washington Post. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with DaffodilOcean. Clearly establishes WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Extended significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources already cited in the article at the time of commenting—the Economist, the Guardian, the New York Times—demonstrate fulfillment of the general notability guideline. WP:NPOL is a guide for when a person is presumed to be notable, but people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject has been shown to be notable, she has received significant coverage in independent sources. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:45, 17 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Slyusarenko

Yevgeny Slyusarenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An ordinary Russian journalist. There is no noticeable importance.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I have written the article and I made sure it satisfies WP:N by adding references to multiple reliable sources. The nomination does not address the point. Obviously keep. --Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 18 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 COPIM. which is the page title for the article about Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Book Collective

Open Book Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page may not meet Wikipedia's notability; perhaps - redirect to Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs BoraVoro (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BoraVoro for your suggestion to delete this page. Maybe to share some details around why I thought it might be good to have a separate page on the Open Book Collective - this Open Access platform and community has been developed out of the Community-Led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs project, but as the COPIM project has ended and the Open Book Collective itself has matured and now is its own legal entity, I thought it might make more sense to have a separate entry for that initiative. I agree that the current state of the page is still rudimentary, but my hope is that this will be soo growing to include more detailed information around key collaborations, etc. in the space of non-profit OA book publishing, so would be grateful if this could be given space here on Wikipedia going forward. Thanks so much for your consideration, and all best, Flavoursofopen (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you @Flavoursofopen for your passion and work. I'm not entirely in favor of deletion at this point. I am open to changing or withdrawing my vote. BoraVoro (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I added a stub tag to the page. Looking over the coverage of the Open Book Collective on the web, it appears notable enough but the article is just starting and does need work. In this case we should follow Wikipedia's policy of improving an article rather than deleting it.WP:EDITING Myotus (talk) 19:04, 10 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) 14:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior "no consensus" closure was vacated per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 28. This can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 18:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. I could not find anything beyond the resources cited here which are authored by persons from the project's institutions (well, other than the UK gov entry and that is a factual register including all NGOs). These sources could be included to support facts, but they do not support notability. Lamona (talk) 04:25, 15 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 14

Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm a bit conflicted about this nomination - while it's clear a lot of work was put into the article, it appears to fundamentally contradict WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTGALLERY as a mass gallery of images with no coverage in secondary sources. Perhaps this can be transwikied somewhere else? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback. On the face of it, I would agree that the the article appears to be a gallery - in its current form... It's one of a series featuring the panoramas shot on Apollo and I've been focussed on getting the basics in place first so that I can return and enrich each of them later. I'm a day or so away from completing the Apollo 17 article, but I would stand up the "Lunar Panoramic Photography - Apollo 11" article as an example of the direction I intend to go in. Although that isn't complete either, at least it includes some of those added-value features, such as placing the panoramas in context through the use of maps, and providing commentary as to how the shots came about. (And after Apollo, there's all the panoramas from the automated missions that occurred before and after the manned missions.)
Naturally, having done the work, I think it's a worthy inclusion. If there is a more appropriate format for it to be presented in then I would be happy to transfer it, but, for now, I'd prefer to think of it as moving in the direction of being a 'Catalogue' rather than a 'Gallery'... Usedtoknoweverything (talk) 14:05, 5 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! 23:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:52, 19 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 23:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Farion

Marko Farion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet the threshold of WP:SINGER, WP:NMUSICOTHER, or WP:ANYBIO. Online searches, including through JSTOR and newspaper archives, turn up no WP:SIGCOV. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 18 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 05:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election

2008 Scottsdale mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Slightly more extensive than 2012 Scottsdale mayoral election. Still probably falls under WP:MILL. Okmrman (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Scottsdale is large enough, being one of the 100 largest cities in the United States that its elections are almost certainly notable. I'm not sure how someone can argue the politics of a large city like this one aren't at all notable.
-Samoht27 (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 26 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 ESPN College Basketball#Personalities. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Basketball personalities

List of ESPN College Basketball personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, there is none. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge to ESPN College Basketball#Personalities with only the most notable announcers on that list. The article on its own is good for the fandom, it is otherwise WP:LISTCRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 12 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! 05:24, 19 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 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4] and [[5]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 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! 07:22, 27 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This discussion is) Off the Record

(This discussion is) Off the Record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Police, Internet, and Netherlands. Justiyaya 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping and note. I deproDed the page because I believed that what is said in Screen Daily (although presented in an interview, and brief) + screening/nomination would make an Afd more suitable. It's probably not enough. The film/piece/project are covered partially elsewhere, but it's hard to say if the IDFA grant is significant enough or if what IDFA says about the film can be considered independent. There are the Variety and BDE mentions (see above and article); Yahoo News has a similar mention; there's other overage that might be judged significant and independent about the work:
  1. Then back to the algorithmic crime prevention Nirit Peled delved into. Not a futuristic AI fantasy, but something already very concrete. The latter also applies to the performance inspired by it (this conversation is) Off the Record. In front of a room full of audience, a police officer (actor Janneke Remmers, with texts from real interviews) and human rights lawyer Jelle Klaas explain both sides of this stigmatising technique. Concluding with Peled wondering where empathy has gone, and why the algorithm's checklist does not look at the children's positive traits. They have all been given a digital copy of themselves, but where have they themselves gone? At that moment, it slowly starts to become clear how we can see this beautiful animation with figures wandering across a hall-wide screen. They are people, youngsters no doubt, but all wonderfully distorted. Towards the end, one slowly comes closer and closer, and behind that bizarre, digitally animated mask I thought I could actually see a pair of children's eyes. An unexpectedly touching moment. It just makes the thought that we could all be relegated to digital files all the more oppressive. in Cultuurpeers
  2. Filmmaker Nirit Peled will introduce her extensive investigative research into the development of crime prevention algorithms in Amsterdam. Peled converts information, which is otherwise invisible, or simply incomprehensible, into narratives and images. Through her forthcoming documentary film Moeders and performative lecture Off the Record she offers a vivid account of the lived experiences and emotions of mothers whose sons have been impacted by algorithmic policing. (Fotodok)

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

I think the Yahoo News page duplicates the variety article I put in the nomination. I haven't seen the other two before but I don't think fotodok would be independent or significant as it appears to be from a bio of the artist.
The Cultuurpeers page looks reasonably reliable and gives a fine amount coverage. Let's see we could get another source. Justiyaya 04:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Lunn

Connor Lunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 15:31, 4 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! 22:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The first source explained above is the better one, the second is only a brief profile. I don't find anything we'd use, mostly statistics on various sites. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we require in-depth coverage for the general notability guidelines, all we have for Connor Lunn is some statistics. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:48, 17 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 speedy delete‎. WP:G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://websterathletics.com/sports/2008/1/8/GORLOKHISTORY.aspx) — CactusWriter (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorlok

Gorlok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My gosh what a mess. There are literally ZERO references. Okmrman (talk) 22:50, 11 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. Owen× ☎ 07:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Goindval

Battle of Goindval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another one of these poorly sourced pages that fail WP:HISTRS, many primary sources that could also categorize under WP:RAJ. Noorullah (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Primary sources that were earlier indicated have been removed and the work is not mirroring others, the article looks decent and is sourced well and has been cleaned up nicely and can stay as per WP:HEY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 2024-05-11 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add your signature to any comments in an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment by Festivalfalcon873 , thank you , I will do this from now on. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- The article is still littered with plenty of old sources that are not WP:RS. There is nothing "cleaned up" besides the removal of one primary source which does not account for all the other sources that mentioned above, are poor in quality. [9] Noorullah (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not use a single WP:RAJ source and contains mostly scholarly sources, now coming to your assessment of reliability. Your nominations are not dependent upon constructive criticism or from a neutral standpoint. You did not identify upon which sources you think are unreliable, the sources that are being used are more then WP:RS such as Hari Ram Gupta, however your criticism or nominations do not come from neutral standpoint.  For ex: if a source fits your narrative it becomes reliable, if a source does not fit your narrative then it’s deemed unreliable. This article should stay as per WP:HEY as the sources currently being used such as Hari Ram Gupta , Ganda Singh are universally approved scholars.
—Festivalfalcon873 Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was using WP:RAJ sources until you REMOVED them, not sure why you are presenting it as if they weren't here in the first place. [10]
Hari Ram Gupta is a reliable source, but he does not mention it as a "Sikh victory", nor mentions anything about looting, or how many prisoners were relieved as shown here. [11]
Moving on to other sources... You cite Mehta, yet on page 302, there's no mention of such a battle at all? Why are you citing from books that don't mention such a thing? [12]
Gopal Singh is a primary source, and is not scholarly at all. The rest of the sources are unreliable that fail WP:HISTRS, many of the individuals not being historians either. Noorullah (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, reliable sources don't even call this the "Battle of Goindval" as Southasian showed above, there's no instance of this being a battle. Noorullah (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-- First, the issue of being Wikipedia:RAJbeing present is fixed, as this has been removed. This should not be any issue as pointed out initially.
- Second, Hari Ram Gupta mentions clearly on pg 168, “At the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas the Sikhs are said to have relieved the invader of a number of captives, who were afterwards sent to their homes” citing sources such as Shamshir Khalsa pg105 ,( https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfTheSikhsVol.IiEvolutionOfSikhConfederacies1707-69/page/n184/mode/1up) this source, as you pointed out is a WP:RS. During this battle, the objective (releasing captives) was complete & thus a victory. Similarly in the book Ahmad Shah Durrani (1959) by Singh Ganda ,pg 264, “No sooner did the Shah enter the Panjab than the Sikhs, as usual, began to harry him during his march. Under the command of Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, they surprised the Afghans at the ferry of Goindwal, on the right bank of the Beas, and succeeded in releasing from their clutches as many as two thousand and two hundred women captives, who were restored by them to their homes.” (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.503016/page/n292/mode/1up) Similarly this source is also citing from same Shamshir Khalsa pg105 , mentioning the numbers and quoting of the Sikhs succeeding (victory) in completing their objective. Both are scholarly sources which are citing factual evidence.
- Third, you made a mistake that Mehta did not cite this occurrence. Mehta both showed this occurrence and spoke of Sikhs making their attack and succeeding in their objective of releasing captives. Now let me show you, from Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 page 302, “They made a surprise attack on the Afghan camp in strength at the ferry of Goindwal on the Beas and secured the liberation of a large number of the Maratha captives, who were being held by the Afghans as enslaved labourers for the carriage of their baggage to Afghanistan; they were subsequently sent to their homes in the south with suitable provisions.” Here is the clear factual description of the battle or occurrence which is being written but you deny for your own personal viewpoints. You pointed out further that it does not talk about looting , now going back to Advanced Study in the History of Modern India 1707-1813 pg302 by Mehta it perfectly describes the looting occurred, “ Nevertheless, they pounced upon the staggerers and carried away their booty and the baggage along with their horses all the same”. (https://books.google.com/books?id=d1wUgKKzawoC&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=%22Nevertheless,+they+pounced+upon+the+staggerers+and+carried+away+their+booty+and+the+baggage+along+with+their+horses+all+the+same%22&source=bl&ots=HOSZf38kUl&sig=ACfU3U080Q5ItKoniFa0n5ysIrLIUaEKyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi72fXMwImGAxWJIDQIHb0pDLIQ6AF6BAgUEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false) Therefore your statement on both things your pointed is factually incorrect.
- Fourth, again you made a mistake. Dr. Gopal Singh is a scholarly source and as noted here (https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gopal_Singh) whose work has been lauded by other scholars and literary figures including Nobel laureate Pearl Buck , who is onpar in credibility to that of J.S Grewal and Hari Gupta which are more then WP:RS.
-Even prominent historians & scholars such as Ganda Singh agree in the book Jassa Singh Auliwalia on pg 106 that this battle attack which occurred on Goindwal was successful , “Therefore, S. Jassa Singh drew his sword and taking a few selected Singhs with him reiched Goindwal and attacked the Durranis when they were crossing the river ; even before they could imagine what had happened, he freed the bonded women. He gave them pocket expenses and sent them to their respective places. This sympathy and bravery made S. Jassa Singh famous in the length and breadth of the entire country, and his valour and selfless service became a household word, and he became famous as a Liberator of bonded women.” ( https://apnaorg.com/books/english/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia/sardar-jassa-singh-ahluwalia.pdf). Therefore the credibility of this event should be accepted by the reviewer of this discussion.
- If there are further issues or concerns that need to be fixed , such as unreliable sources or issues in the article, then it is the job of the nominator to point them out and identify them and describe them. However, to generalize something because you don’t agree with it based mostly on personal reasons, such as not personally agreeing with an author, then is not suitable for the platform on Wikipedia. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but please follow WP:KEEPCONCISE. See Wikipedia:Wall of text. I'm not going to read that but here's instead the main point I'm driving. The title of this page is completely WP:OR, no sources mention it as a "battle of Goinvdal".Noorullah (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, notable reliable historians such as Mehta, Hari Ram Gupta and Ganda Singh and Saggu have noted this place , Goindwal, was where the occurrence of the attack took place. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 06:53, 13 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand

Second Sikh Invasion of Rohilkhand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreliable sources per WP:HISTRS, many primary sources as well. Noorullah (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 2 primary sources mentioned, and the authors I cited are historians who aswell proved the event that happened the deletion is unnessecary. Alvin1783 (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument here so Soft Deletion is not appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enid Rivera

Enid Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG; the only hits I found were for unrelated people. Article already had a removed PROD, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 11 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. Even with the nom blocked, we have sufficient input from established editors making the case Star Mississippi 13:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election

2012 Scottsdale mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With the deletion of 2018 Garland mayoral special election, I think some of the other articles part of WP:CLUSTERFUCK should be reassessed. Okmrman (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Okmrman is indef-blocked for sockpuppetry.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Asher

Levi Asher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Per a WP:BEFORE, failed to find independent RS that would establish notability. None of the included sources are independent or SIGCOV, with 4 coming from a website the subject maintains and 1 an op-ed from the author. Almost 2/3 of the article has been written by Asheresque, likely a COI account. Longhornsg (talk) 22:38, 11 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 Grand Valley State University#Mascot. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louie the Laker

Louie the Laker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be notable, sources seem to come from GVSU and that only amounts to like 2 sources. Okmrman (talk) 23:14, 4 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! 22:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CactusWriter Parts of it seem to be directly copied
https://web.archive.org/web/20110515133533/http://www.gvsulakers.com/genrel/012103aad.html Okmrman (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was copied, but the copyvio has been removed and revision deletion applied. -- Whpq (talk) 03:10, 13 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. A redirect discussion can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 13:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahawalnagar incident

Bahawalnagar incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Should be either merged or deleted. Event doesn't require its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd argue it's pretty significant Claire 26 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Three different Redirect/Merge target articles have been mentioned, we have to get that down to one suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, This is a WP:NOTNEWS event that received a brief wave of coverage with no fatalities.

Such events occur commonly; for example, see similar incidents [13], [14]. War Wounded (talk) 02:26, 25 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. E/C with Owen. I'd normally consider draftification ahead of its potential launch, but given socking concerns I don't think that's a viable solution here. Star Mississippi 13:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P80 Air

P80 Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo sock creation for an airline that might begin operations late 2024. Fails GNG and NCORP, sources in article and found in BEFORE do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  22:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I disagree with the statement below that these sources contain only "Regurgitated company info and announcements and exec profiles". While there are quotes from company officials, these sources also contain original independent analysis about the company. Cunard (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 18 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 Progressive Democrats of America#History. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Segal

Joel Segal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV by independent RS that justify an article in the 15 years that this article has existed. Per a WP:BEFORE, the only thing resembling any sort of coverage is this profile on an activist group's website. Longhornsg (talk) 22:14, 11 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temoc

Temoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was turned into a redirect due to having no independent sources before I brought it back. I think this does deserve some discussion because there are a lot of mascot pages that are sourced similarly to Temoc. Okmrman (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If this was changed to a Redirect, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment perhaps the article could be broadened to be about "student life" in general? A lot of the article is about topics only tangentially related to the athletic mascot. Texas–Dallas Comets is the only plausible merge (or redirect) target I see, none of this material needs to be in the main university article. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more opinions. We have a possible Redirect target to be Texas–Dallas Comets but not much consensus for it. I almost feel like this could be closed procedurally as the nominator was indfinitely blocked for their single-minded deletion campaign in AFDLand.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 25 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 College Basketball on ABC#Commentators. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of College Basketball on ABC personalities

List of College Basketball on ABC personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and the ESPN now redirects to the main page, neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. A few things here: I want to quickly address some of the arguments presented by the nominator. WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a policy that relates to current and upcoming events/programming, so I wouldn't really consider this to be applicable here as it is a combination of past and present television personalities. From a spot check of individuals on the list, standalone articles about the subjects included on this list are notable and meet WP:NBIO. Of course, this does not inherently make the list itself notable, especially one that is standalone. Lists (not necessarily standalone) of this type have held water before (quick examples would include NBC evening news anchors and ABC evening news anchors) with the same rationale that we tend retain lists of notable persons that have a notable trait in common. This goes beyond being simply an indiscriminate database, but is a significant compilation of an important aspect of the underlying subject, in this case, the television program College Basketball on ABC. As a result, deletion altogether would be a disservice the extent of knowledge one can gain regarding the television program. Regardless of the numerous sources added since time of nomination, I concur with the nominator that this article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NLIST for a standalone list. To retain the inline citations, per WP:AOAL, combined with the above, merging this list as suggested by Conyo14 (talk · contribs) seems be the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Delete or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed my vote to merge per the previous comment. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 27 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. Surprised to see a consensus to Keep this article as most of the other articles on sports broadcasting for events that have been brought to AFD have resulted in Deletions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports

List of NCAA March Madness commentary crews for CBS/TNT Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, most of these are WP:PRIMARY. Of the three remaining sources two of them is dead and one is nothing but listings and announcments, doing nothing to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:33, 11 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 Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation. as an ATD, closure was based in large part on the source analysis. Liz Read! Talk! 22:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BRTC AC Bus Dhaka–Narayanganj

BRTC AC Bus Dhaka–Narayanganj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It was notability tagged, and I thought of PRODing it first. Anyway, It is a road transportation route of some AC bus service, which typically does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines unless it holds significant historical, cultural, or geographical importance. This specific route, while serving as a bus service between two cities, lacks the requisite significance to warrant a separate article.

Articles on individual bus services, particularly those of routine nature, are not within the scope of Wikipedia, as it is not a platform for travelogue content. The current article predominantly consists of mundane details such as launch dates, owners names, ticket prices, etc. without notable incidents or historical relevance.

While media coverage exists for this route and this bus service, it primarily comprises routine or trivial news items, failing to establish the bus service's notability beyond its basic function. X (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The statement that articles on individual bus services are not within the scope of Wikipedia is plainly untrue as there are many such well-sourced articles on the wiki. The nomination seems to be making an assumption that this article should be deleted based on its subject matter. There are several sources on the article, I think we need more details on why each of these do not contribute towards establishing notability. Garuda3 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garuda3, No, the "nomination is not simply just an assumption based on its subject matter." I know there are many articles on bus services. I explicitly said that unless it holds significant historical, cultural, or geographical importance, such as London–Calcutta bus service. Sure, some bus services may become notable for other reasons.
    But this article, however, do not show any ground for notability other than its basic functioning's routine coverage, and the article is filled of mundane details. Nothing beyond that exists in the article other than those run-of-the-mill coverages.
    Here's my evaluation of the sources. (I'm a native speaker of Bengali).
  1. BDnews24, Reliable pub. The scheduled and planned coverage is based on the inaugural ceremony attended by MPs and top level officials of the bus company, and other VIPs. It falls under routine coverage.
  2. Same pub, based on probable press release by the city's Nagarik Committee (Citizen Alliance). Brief coverage about them demanding a bus service to be started for this route. Mentions who said what, who were present, etc.
  3. Local mere online news portal, narayanganjbarta24, reliability is not confirmed. Doesn't count as a Significant coverage. Relays the statement of the Bus company's official regarding the announced inaugural of the service and the schedule of the event.
  4. Naya Diganta, major pub. The coverage is also routine, and it's mentioned within the article that this is based on the statement/press release of an official "sharing with much joy that the service on this route will be inaugurated on this day and when and who'll be present, etc."
  5. Same pub, the only article here that's not based on press release or centered around press briefings. However, it's mere routine coverage about some syndicate trying to counter the establishment of a bus ticket counter there. And lists several officials and police's statements/briefings. Wikipedia is not news
  6. The News Narayanganj, crummy local unreliable online news website. Reports on despite the strikes by other transportation owners due to price hike of fuel, this bus owners are still carrying their service. And lists several people's statements.
  7. Ekushey television, major TV station. A very brief report noting the ticket cost reduction of the bus service, relaying the statement of the bus depot's manager.
Note that not a single of these sources have a proper byline. Although WP:RSNOI mainly concerns coverage about people, or brands/companies, but still in this case, gives an idea these coverages are nothing more than routine news event based on either press releases or statements by officials on scheduled events. No significant independent, in-depth coverage exists that show's the service is notable outside its basic functions. X (talk) 23:31, 12 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 Jackson Wang. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slow (Jackson Wang & Ciara song)

Slow (Jackson Wang & Ciara song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable release. Although it got a music video, there doesn't appear to be enough coverage per WP:GNG , additionally it did not chart, was not subject to considerable critical reception etc. so does not pass notability per WP:NSONGS. Could be redirected to Jackson Wang >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:19, 11 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.

All Keep votes were either from sockpuppets or sockmasters so I think it's okay to discount them and close this as a Soft Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reign in Slumber

Reign in Slumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The main notability claim being attempted here is that one of its members was previously associated with a different band, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing -- but seven of the 16 footnotes here (close to half) are the band's own self-published content about itself on their own website or Bandcamp, which is not notability-supporting sourcing as it isn't independent of them, and the other nine aren't coverage about this band, but either glancingly mention this band in the process of being about something else, or are completely tangential sourcing about people associated with this band doing other unrelated things that have nothing to do with this band, none of which helps to support this band's notability either.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to have much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reign in Slumber, is truly metal music band in Cambodia. this sub genre in it's very very rare find better sourced than this to support with their action. Without fund and most people came there just looking for free music during the music in Cambodia just built-up. Ten years they're struggle to survive, without them this sub genre will disappear in Cambodia. Please consider to accept my reason. Thanks JammyKH (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If having a wikipedia article helps them survive, that's PROMO and not helping us keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not exist as a public relations platform to help emerging bands build their careers — making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article comes second, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just improved some info and add more better sourced. Thanks JammyKH (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 22 is the only one that's in what Source Tool identifies as a RS, but it's a very trivial mention. This is about the band [24], trivial coverage and I'm unsure if it's even a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In cambodia, for a small subgenre music not getting any interest at all, Only POP, Hip-hop, Romantic and Khmer Traditional that's people acceptable. Metal in Cambodia is about to die. Reign in Slumber is real, they exist, they have the real music, real album and real performance.[25] [26] Camboculture27 (talk) 03:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notability test doesn't hinge on whether or not they're real, it hinges on whether or not they have received third-party attention in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What proper reliable sourcing is making this "satisfactory"? Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusion criteria do not hinge on what they "deserve", Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge on WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, of which you still haven't shown any. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 21 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! 22:02, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Stracher

Cameron Stracher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR, or to otherwise have the necessary in depth coverage in independent sources required to meet general notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 11 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 09:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HitmanPro

HitmanPro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reliant entirely on primary sources and a press release. Tagged non-notable for 9 years without improvement. Previously dePRODed in 2009 claiming software is fairly widenly used and thus probably notable - this is irrelevant unless sourcing is provided, which it hasn't for 15 years. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 talk contribs 19:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: According to my check, I searched for reliable sources with in-depth coverage from multiple independent sources but found none. The article totally fails to meet WP:GNG. To establish notability, it requires multiple in-depth coverages from independent reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 08:52, 24 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! 23:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EFOSMO

EFOSMO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has many issues. If I understand correctly, EFOSMO is a proposed model that was presented in two academic papers that were published in several journals across the globe. Nothing further happened with the proposed model so I conclude that the subject does not meet WP:GNG and the article should be deleted. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 talk contribs 19:59, 11 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! 23:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sevad

Sevad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, nothing found in article or BEFORE that this meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if reliable sources are found with indepth coverage meeting SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  17:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusty4321 talk contribs 19:57, 11 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! 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per my check, I found nothing that can be called in-depth coverage. The article totally fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. To establish notability, it requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable independent secondary sources. GrabUp - Talk 08:56, 24 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. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of flags by color combination

AfDs for this article:
List of flags by color combination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, better suited via categories and galleries at c:, since we are not a list of galleries. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've always been a big fan of the nom's work on the encyclopedia but I've got to disagree with Koavf on this one. This is one of the more useful list articles out there and I don't think the deletion rationale sufficiently articulated how this fails WP:NOT; this is just a list article. The terms "gallery" or "galleries" never appear at WP:NOT nor do any of the ctrl+f search results for "list" point to anything that would make this list article problematic. What makes this one different from other list articles? All due respect, I think the original research claim will need some substantiation, too. Is it original research to state that the flags of Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Palestine, Western Sahara, etc all consist of the colors green, black, red, and white? I believe we do the same thing on the article Pan-Arab colors, so I don't exactly know what makes it different when it's in a list article format. Is it original research to state that the Flag of Germany consists of the colors black, red, and gold? Is the original research part saying the same thing about the Flag of Belgium and categorizing them both under the black, red, and gold section?
This isn't to say the article being discussed doesn't have room for improvement. It has quite a lot. But the biggest problem it faces is that it lacks a defined inclusion criteria, and that's something that can be fixed through a simple RfC, not an AfD. Maybe after this AfD is over, assuming the page isn't deleted, I'll suggest some possible criteria and start a request for comment. Some no-brainer criteria could be that you need to cite reliable sources to add a flag if it doesn't already have a standalone Wikipedia page.
 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your kind words. See WP:NOTGALLERY. This is not an article that discusses things, but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does "This is not an article that discusses things," not describe all list articles? As for "but a more-or-less arbitrary set of images.", the "images" part can only be said here because the subject matter is a list of flags, so including flagicons is only natural. As for the arbitrary nature, that's the fault of the lack of a defined criteria, which is fixable through discussion and not an inherent flaw with the article necessitating deletion. Per WP:NOTGALLERY, "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of: #2) Internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists for browsing or to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists." As this is a list article for readers to browse and assists with navigating to other pages on the encyclopedia, whether they're articles about flags or about the locations said flags represent, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what makes this list article different from any other.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guidelines you're citing certainly don't apply here, for the following reasons:
  1. because "any straightforward reading of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources" (WP:OR, under Acceptable Media, Section 3.3),
  2. because the list is "organized", "selective", and flag colors play a non-trivial part in vexillology (WP:TRIVIA, Section 3),
  3. and as User:Vanilla Wizard above puts it, the list "assists with article organization and navigation" (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Section 2.4.2) in ways that Wikimedia Commons couldn't do better.

Also, notice that this is the 2nd nomination. There's a reason the 1st one didn't pass. – Ahmadiskandarshah (talk) 06:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While some color combinations (such as red, black, and green) are significant, the vast majority of these have no clear significance, so grouping them together inappropriately implies meanings where there is none. For instance, the flags of Brazil and Connecticut are in the same section, but they use colors in different ways (i.e., green is a reference to the House of Braganza for Brazil while it is used for grapevines for Connecticut, at least according to their Wikipedia articles). The lack of references in this article gives some indication of how meaningless these groupings are; where references exist, they tend to focus on very surface-level observations (example) and do not comprise significant secondary coverage needed to show notability. To address some of the counterarguments mentioned here:
    • I believe the comment about lists that assist with article organization and navigation refer to lists of lists and the like, where the lists are solely intended to direct readers to other articles, not to be a destination of their own. (Note that it mentions those lists are solely made of internal links – they are meant for people to go somewhere else, not to be read.)
    • While it is not OR to determine which colors a flag uses, it is inappropriate synthesis to group them together and imply connections between them: Do not combine material ... to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
    • WP:NOTGALLERY is absolutely applicable: Articles are not photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context (which, again, is not possible for most of these color combinations).
    • I agree that most of this is WP:TRIVIA. There may be meaning to some color combinations, and those would be non-trivial vexillological facts, but in that case those combinations can simply be mentioned in their own articles or as a small section in another article. The rest are irrelevant.
— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:57, 14 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! 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with  Vanilla that "this is one of the more useful list articles out there", and one I would certainly have visited myself if I had realized that it existed. That's not to say it can't be improved. One minor point is that "gold" is a silly word to mean "yellow". More important, it would be much easier to navigate if it were divided into sections: national flags; state or province flags; county flags; city flags; other flags. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful reference article that does no harm to the project. Color combinations are well-attested in RS and are usually obvious enough to be stated without sources. Air on White (talk) 10:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles as useful as this should be kept even if they fail deletion policies under their strictest interpretation. Policies can be vague anyway: there is disagreement on how much coverage there must be in a source to be significant according to GNG. Air on White (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not sure of specific policies when there are no citations, but the flags themselves are the citations, just like when you don't need a citation for a Book or Movie plot, as the book or movie is the citation. Someone seem to have spent lot's of time creating this and it is useful and encyclopedic to have. I do believe that we need some better policies for deciding the notability of pages like this.Hkkingg (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The policies are WP:OR, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOT, etc. all cited previously. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These polices you refer to do not exactly apply. They are specifically for sections within articles and not complete articles. We are here as a community deciding if the page should be kept. So whatever the majority decides, I am fine with it. Hkkingg (talk) 08:07, 26 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biography work

Biography work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not able to discern what the topic is here. The article seems to be an unsourced essay, not to mention very over-capitalized. Is there a notable topic here that someone can point out so we can fix it, or should we just delete it? Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if you aren't really, really, REALLY interested in esotericism, this will be patent nonsense to you. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:52, 17 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 Canada national rugby union players. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Trenkel

Nick Trenkel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Canada national rugby union players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was a few sentences here from his high school football days. JTtheOG (talk) 18:40, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of athletes who came out of retirement

List of athletes who came out of retirement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of sportspeople who 'retire' for various reasons undisclosed in this list. It is nothing new to see some of them being dropped by their teams then take a season out and come back, does that mean they have 'retired'? Take this example of Fernando Alonso, he did not retire at all. Despite being without a drive, and despite competing at Le Mans and tried to qualify at Indy in 2019, he was held by his team under contract, then COVID. Alan Jones may had 'retired' but his racing career elsewhere continued through to 2002. Overall, I cannot see how this pass WP:LISTN either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Should I go on? WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Conyo14 (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I think that list needs fixing. There needs to be a subsection on why some of them have come out of retirement. These reasons can be about money (Niki Lauda), being encouraged to join a new team under familiar teammates (Rob Gronkowski, who retired to avoid being traded off). Do one-offs really count? (Tony Hawk, Dale Jr) - this was part of that reason for that AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but that isn't a reason to delete the article entirely. WP:FIXIT applies. Let'srun (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting a section at the start of the article explaining why an athlete might come out of retirement or a narrative for the circumstances of each athlete's retirement and un-retirement? If the latter, you're talking about something that is no longer a list but a full-fledged article. If you want to know more about why the guy retired and/or unretired, you can simply read the player's article or the cited sources. There have been some athletes for whom I added footnotes when their un-retirement was not what we'd think of as a traditional case of an athlete coming out of retirement (e.g. as a publicity stunt, as part of a bet, a player-coach inserting himself into a game, etc.) I think those one-sentence explanations for those strange outlier cases suffices. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As someone who has contributed to this list (primarily the baseball section) perhaps as significantly as anyone, I have to disagree with your premise. I am always sure to find sources saying that the athlete actually quit and was not simply unemployed or injured for a year. For example, I haven't added Joe Page to the list because I searched diligently and wasn't able to find a source saying he quit. Some of those other sections may need to be better sourced or someone needs to go through and remove those entries which don't fit the actual criteria of the article. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly a notable concept, as noted in the sources provided in this discussion. This is a perfect example of an article which needs cleanup, not deletion. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I agree that it is a clearly a notable concept. I still think it needs to be in a better quality than this, such as explaining why those sportspoeple retired and came back and remove all one-off comebacks, these are not officially such. I had already removed some questionable ones such as those in motorsport. other than that, I offer to call close to this nomination. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:04, 17 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riccardo Genovese

Riccardo Genovese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Italian rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was routine transfer news (1, 2, 3, etc.). JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 11 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! 22:29, 18 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! 22:58, 25 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) 21:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Quinn (disambiguation)

Patricia Quinn (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need for this dab page, per WP:ONEOTHER. Users can hardly know of its existence since it is not even hatnoted atop Patricia Quinn, where the hatnote only states, "For the American scientist, see Patricia Quinn (atmospheric chemist). For similar names, see Pat Quinn (disambiguation)." If preferred, instead of deletion, Patricia Quinn (disambiguation) can simply exist as a redirect to the Pat Quinn dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kleiner, Dick (1970-03-01). "'Watermelon' turns sour". The Journal Times. p. 16. Retrieved 2024-05-13.
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 College Football on ABC#Personalities. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football personalities

List of ESPN College Football personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, most of these are about the game and if they do, barely offering much to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to College Football on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD. Agree with nom about everything except WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This is a list of personalities to which I do not see how this would be a tv guide, so that policy is out. I don't find the list covers WP:LISTN exclusively. It's good to return to the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:46, 12 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working Women (TV series)

Working Women (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this and this and even INTERVIEWS like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them is reliable enough to establish WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review/analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I too do believe the Youlin review and the Daily Pakistan one cannot be dismissed. They're signed and the periodicals cannot be considered unreliable. The piece in Feminism in India has one paragraph: Working Women showcases the realities of women in the modern society of the 21st century. The story overcomes biases and embraces the range of experiences because of the characters’ intersectionality, which enables it to touch on a number of facets of womanhood. Every woman is a representation of a certain aspect of the difficulties women encounter while pursuing a successful career and personal life. The drama encourages viewers to consider the expectations society places on women as it progresses. It also establishes a new benchmark for poignant and significant storytelling. The 2 paragraphs in Dawn, mentioned by Saqib, are not "routine" and I find the opening statement rather significant: While most commercial shows offer us a carefully sanitised version of life, scripts from writer Bee Gul show us a world with all the rough edges and inconsistencies intact. Lucy aka Nusrat (Maria Wasti) is a wealthy real estate agent for urban elites. The first episode shows her pondering her fate as a lonely, single woman heading towards middle age, while her friends are comfortably married with children. By episode three, she has a disparate collection of women to keep her company as paying guests. The credit for making this set-up believable goes to director Yasra Rizvi and the actresses playing each paying guest character: Srha Asghar plays Amber, a bitter, poor little rich girl who has lost her home because of a boyfriend; Faiza Gilani plays Hashmat, a woman escaping sexual harassment; Ilsa Hareem is a runaway teenage bride; and there are more. And the rest of the sources include mostly interviews but allow verification of the cast/date, production history and basic facts. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 21 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tumhare Husn Ke Naam

Tumhare Husn Ke Naam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this or namechecks coverage like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Added multiple references which help establish WP:GNG. Google Search yields significant content about the show (free images, references, critic reviews,cast etc). Sameeerrr (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet) S0091 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sameeerrr, Can you please provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Why consider only Three sources when articles contains all WP:RS? After removing 4 Non Reliable sources, it does includes 9 Reliable Sources. In aggregate, it establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sameeerrr (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sameeerrr, For me and others to determine whether the topic meets GNG, I suggest you provide THREE of the best coverage sources here. It's as simple as that. Nobody will comb through those nine citations to gauge whether this subject meets GNG. Please ensure the THREE coverage sources you provide meet WP:SIRS requirements. This is how AfD functions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      No matter which references I'll provide, you'll still have some issues with it. As I don't have any specific interest associated with this article, I had to put across my POV which I did and established it with evidences as well (by adding references). Like I said in WP:AfD for Fatima Feng, I'll leave it to other editors and closing admin to figure out. Take care! Sameeerrr (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sameeerrr, You could've at least attempted to present THREE, just THREE sources, but it seems there aren't any that qualify for GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      All the sources are adequate enough to establish WP:GNG like I said. I wonder if you nominated WP:AfD without evaluating all the sources since you've no idea about the inline citations of the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So, what's holding you back from providing just THREE here? I've taken over 1000+ articles to AfD, so I know what I'm doing. If I were nominating pages without any rationale, I would have been BLOCKED already. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Your perspective and my perspective regarding WP:GNG differs already. | This, | this and | this, appears to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as well but I won't be shocked if you oppose it. Sameeerrr (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm definitely going to oppose these coverage. I'm not really surprised either that you came up with not only poor coverage but also poor sources like Daily Pakistan to establish GNG. Daily Pakistan is notorious for publishing sensational news stories. And the Dawn News coverage seems to be from an interview, so it's not independent of the subject. Meanwhile, Daily Times looks like a clear paid placements. One can clearly see the style of churnalism writing. Sure, they can be used for WP:V, but for establishing GNG, I'd say NO. Also, you mentioned I have no idea about the inline citations. But the fact is, your grasp of GNG is poor too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This was the reason I wasn't giving you the best "Three" as I already knew you won't be satisfied. It's a consensus, not a WP:Forum, where we're supposed to decide who's right and who's wrong. IMO all the sources are reliable and establish WP:GNG plus Google search yields alot about the serial (free images, links, reviews from critics etc) as "Find Sources" is appearing on this WP:AfD, there can be more possible references to add in it. As per my grasp of WP:GNG, it clearly meets WP:NTV. If my grasp of WP:GNG was poor, I'd not have nominated shows like Bhagyavidhaata, Aurat (TV series) and voted "Delete" for Chamak Damak as I feel they clearly fails WP:NTV, In comparison to these, this one is thousand times better. I don't want to waste my time on this anymore as I said above, Have a good day! Sameeerrr (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sameeerrr This is not about satisfying Saqib but making a convincing argument to the community. You did do the right thing by starting the WP:RSN#Pakistani Sources discussion to get feedback about some the sources and based my comments and others they are not reliable and/or primary. Also, WP:NTV is an essay, not a guideline so does not enjoy community consensus like WP:GNG. Given you are supporting Keep, I echo Saqib's request for WP:THREE as none of the ones you presented at RSN meet the criteria and based on the sources currently in article, I am seeing casting announcements, articles based on largely what those affiliated and other run-of-the-mill/press release material. The first source would not open for me though so I could not asses that one so please double check the url. If it works for you, then the issue is on my side. S0091 (talk) 18:22, 14 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams

AfDs for this article:
List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, fourteen of those are wiki pages, and the rest, if not unsourced, is WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 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! 22:35, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justinmind (software)

Justinmind (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fluffy product description for an app lacking WP:SIGCOV. Sources that aren't the app's website are limited to lists of apps that won an award. Only one of these lists discusses the app, and it's more ad copy Wizmut (talk) 17:06, 11 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! 22:35, 18 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! 22:57, 25 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Delhi schools bomb threats

2024 Delhi schools bomb threats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

general inconsistency and clumsy structure of the article bordering on WP:CIR, plus non-notable and non-lasting coverage of a news report — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgenland (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 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 College Football on ABC#Personalities. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of College Football on ABC personalities

List of College Football on ABC personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is mostly unsourced per WP:RS, barring two WP:PRIMARY and a wiki page, none of those asserting notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to College Football on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD. Agree with nom about everything except WP:NOTTVGUIDE. This is a list of personalities to which I do not see how this would be a tv guide, so that policy is out. I don't find the list covers WP:LISTN exclusively. It's good to return to the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:46, 12 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 Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences. Only one !vote to keep, favoring the sources, but no one concurs. Even though more say to delete, no argument is solidly backed up, discussion is on the light side, and consensus is not strong, so go with the suggested redirect as the least destructive option. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati

Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tried to improve the article but I failed to improve it per WP:SNG as well as others. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources and qualifies for WP:GNG. It have both WP: PRIMARY and WP: SECONDARY sources mentioned as references. It also has historical importance as it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region. -AjayDas (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was also not in favor to delete it. But I couldn't find sufficient references to establish the WP:GNG. If you can demonstrate the notability with sourcing, please do it. Otherwise, just a! vote and " it is first and only Ayurvedic College in North East India region." is not helping it anyhow.
Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:51, 12 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! 22:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Srimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences to which it is affiliated. Founded in 1948 it is 75 years atleast clearly a search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep? Delete? Or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 25 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! 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeevan Nagar

Jeevan Nagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this or namechecks coverage like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:38, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gladerberg

Gladerberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible hoax. Orphan. No references. The creator was banned with their talk page cluttered with deleted articles they made. No evidence for the mountain existing (all sources I found are clearly "sourced from Wikipedia"; including Google Maps, which is semi-user generated). No official mapping or biodiversity agency has ever covered it. The coordinates provided are to a slightly elevated hill in Naturpark Reinhardswald, and the official website yields no results when "Gladerberg" is searched (https://www.naturpark-reinhardswald.de/content/search?SearchText=Gladerberg). I'm new here and assuming a "speedy delete" is reserved for emergencies? If so, this is not an emergency. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is a hill called Gahrenberg 12 miles away from the coordinates provided, which the park's official website does confirm exists [39]. For those who don't speak German, the source reads The second highest elevation of the Reinhardswald's forest is the Gahrenberg with 472 m. I think the proposed article is likely a mistranslation/spelling mistake. BlueSharkLagoon (talk) 19:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Not losing a thing by deleting this one. The creator was blocked as a suspect sock puppet account. Online English mentions of Gladerberg refer to this Wikipedia page. — Maile (talk) 20:26, 18 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! 22:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Feng

Fatima Feng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Couldn't even find ROTM coverage in RS. This page only cites non-RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - On the basis of following observations;

1. Reference 6 and 7 are potential WP:Reliable Sources with WP:SIGCOV about the show.
2. In addition to above, upon Google search of the title in the local language, I found | BBC news, DAWN and Aaj News references, establishing WP: Notability along with WP:SIGCOV, ideally should be incorporated as the references of the article.
3. On Analytically comparison of article with other television shows which I have initiated a WP:AfD on (Bhagyavidhaata and others), appears to be in line with WP: TVSERIES.Sameeerrr (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
Sameeerrr, The coverage in The News relying on interview, isn't suitable for establishing GNG, and People Magazine isn't considered a RS. Similarly, coverage in Urdu language outlets like BBC Urdu and DAWN News, also interview-based, isn't adequate for establishing GNG and doesn't meet WP:SIRS either. While these coverage can be used for WP:V, they fall short of meeting GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (television) sets out references to be primarily WP:Reliable and Independent along with significant coverage.
  • Sources mentioned above are WP:Reliable enough to cover the subject and are WP:Independent of the matter.
  • In WP:GNG, it's clearly stated that, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Sources linked related to BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News aren't merely trivial mentions. They are interviews based on main character and cast member of the show apparently covering the show. Also The News International is a WP:RS where as People Magazine is a weak WP:RS.
All in all, it does establish WP:GNG which is primary criteria as per WP:Notability (television) as per my evaluation, yours can differ. I'll leave it to the other editors to decide the outcome. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:GNG, coverage should be significant and independent of the subject. How does interview-based coverage qualify as independent of the subject? I reiterate that such coverage can be utilized for WP:V but not to establish GNG. My concern isn't about the reliability of sources, but rather the type of coverage. Such coverage often falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as paid placements are common in India as well in Pakistan. Thus, it's advisable to avoid relying on such coverage to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC News, DAWN, Aaj News, The News International falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Sameeerrr (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears my point isn't coming across clearly. I'm NOT saying these sources themselves aren't unreliable, but the coverage they provide has two issues. Firstly, the coverage is based on interviews, which isn't sufficient to meet GNG . Secondly, there's still the issue of paid placements, as outlets like DAWN and The News fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conclusive evidence as to supplement your statement regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA in this case. Hence, it's not appropriate to tag them as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also I believe the sources you removed, | (this and | this) are WP:RS, merely as per your determination you can't constitute WP:RS in the absence of explicit reliable sources list to assess the reliability mentioned sources. Taking into consideration External Links section, and the mentioned references, article clearly establishes WP:GNG along with WP:SIGCOV.
I would rather not reply anymore cause I've other matters to look into as well. I hope closing admin and other editors will take into consideration the points I've raised over this. Adios! Sameeerrr (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sameeerrr, As @CNMall41: noted here: WP:NEWSORGINDIA could be extended to cover the entire media within Indian subcontinent as Pakistan also has issues of paid media. And as CNMall41 said creating a complete listing of ALL publications that engage in such practices would be exhaustive. See you around! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: Someone most probably Sameeerrr (talk · contribs) did this. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just an LTA who targets AFDs at random. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:24, 18 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daurr

Daurr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig./in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Couldn't find anything substantial on Google search. Sources listed are unreliable majorly.Sameeerrr (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFID Global Solution

RFID Global Solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. None of the sources even half meets corporate GNG criteria. The article reads like a self-written PR piece and the sources are just pieced together announcements, events and some self-written items. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete well-written corporate self-promotional advertisement. Awards and clients section makes it even more of an advertisement. Website link takes the reader right to the business home page.— Maile (talk) 01:11, 19 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! 22:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

22 Qadam

22 Qadam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:52, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Edmund Williams

David Edmund Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. The only source is FamilySearch.org. And it it just very basic obit type info plus a one sentence mention that he was one of the founders of a political party. Tagged for wp:notability by others since December North8000 (talk) 15:48, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

101 Talaqain

101 Talaqain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TV show fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Simply being written by a freelancer is not enough to establish WP:GNG, nor is ROTM coverage like this and this.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant coverage exists, including signed reviews, one being currently on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here.Which signed reviews are you referring to? Please provide a link here. Also, may I ask you to provide here some coverage which you think should be sig/in-depth. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      TNS you mentioned yourself, signed Sadia Sherbaz; the review in Youlin Magazine, signed Hurmat Majid; this, signed Zainab Mossadiq; this signed Sophia Qureshi; for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, So, if a piece is signed, does that make it reliable enough to establish GNG? I don't think so, because TNS like other Pakistani RS do accept guest contibutions. And Sadia Sherbaz have only written one article for TNS, as a guest contributor. This piece can be used for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. Meanwhile, Galaxylollywood and TheBrownIdentity aren't even slightly RS. I've mentioned this several times on various forums. They're just internet business websites, with nothing to do with journalism. They even shouldn't be used for WP:V, let alone to establish GNG about something. We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're welcome. You do realise that you seem to be commenting each and every !vote that does not go your way and subsequent additions to the said !votes in the numerous Afd you initiated? It may be in a good spirit and I don't mind personally, but I'm just saying this to apologise in advance: I probably won't reply anymore, sorry. Also, I mentioned these reviews are signed because when I present reviews that are not signed, yourself and certain users discard them (by saying roughly ""not bylined" therefore not RS under NEWSORGINDIA", and so on). But apparently signed reviews are not good enough either and some have nothing to do with journalism (!). So when you say We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot., sure, maybe, but apparently, you have determined that by yourself and my input, added at your request, was not necessary. I therefore leave it at that and will spend no more time on this, again, sorry. Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, Yeah, you're probably right. I might have gone a bit overboard with responding to every single objection to my AfD nomination. But as the one putting forward the AfD, it's on me to address any concerns people have, Right? But like when one mention those non-RS sources for establishing GNG, it's my responsibility to point out that they're not legit RS. Sometimes those sites seem solid at first glance, but with a closer look, they're more like glorified PR machines than actual journalism outlets. So, I guess what I'm saying is, your input is definitely important. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong either – if you check out my AfD stats, you'll see I've withdrawn a bunch of nominations when I realized I goofed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:08, 11 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! 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try with relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Although sources appear to be from local and Pakistani sites, we cannot just assume they are unreliable. The series seems to have enough coverage in its own country to be notable. In particular, here are some of the better coverage 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Hkkingg (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are either content farms or WP:UGC sites. Having said that, these websites may not meet our standards for WP:V, let alone establishing GNG. Source # 3 and 4 have the same URLs. While Dawn Images is considered a RS but this particular coverage seems to be no more than a PR announcing the launch of the show. I believe for establishing GNG requires a high level of coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the sources again and can confirm that they are not user-generated content. I'm not sure what you mean by "content farm," but these sites appear to offer legitimate reviews of the TV Series. It's important not to dismiss sites simply because they are Pakistani or not based in the US; such an assumption doesn't automatically equate to low quality. You'll need to provide a stronger rationale and clearer explanation for why these sites are unacceptable. I understand you're trying to defend your nomination, but it seems like you might be stretching for reasons to avoid appearing as though you've made a poor nomination.
Also here are some additional sources that I have just found:
https://socialdiary.pk/zahid-ahmed-acing-dark-comedy-in-101-talaqain/
https://fuchsiamagazine.com/zahid-ahmed-takes-on-marriage-woes-in-upcoming-drama-comedy-101-talaqain/
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/710739-Zahid-Ahmed-hitting-the-screens-as-lead-in-101-Talaqain
https://www.independenturdu.com/node/152791
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199629 Hkkingg (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you're new to WP, I recommend familiarizing yourself with our policy on WP:RS. Many of the websites you mentioned are WP:UGC platforms that accept guest posts and paid placements, therefore, they do not meet the standards for establishing WP:GNG. Social Diary, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are WP:GUNREL. While coverage in Dawn News and Dunya News coverage is not sig/in-depth and also without by-line which suggest they are paid placements and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage in Independent Urdu is based on an interview therefore is WP:PRIMARY. The issue isn't about the origin of these websites but rather the credibility of the sources. There are plenty of Pakistani sources acceptable for WP usage, but the ones you mentioned are not among them. Further, I'll ping @S0091: so they can review these sources and offer their opinion, too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I cannot offer my opinion per WP:CANVASS. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, Well I'm not asking for your vote, just your opinion on the quality of the sources provided by @Hkkingg, which is permitted, I guess. Given your expertise, you're better equipped to assess the sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CANVASS The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. You are not pinging a range of editors with various opinions, only me. As you know, I have participated in a few similar AfDs, have expressed an opinion on many of these sources and thus far have !voted delete in all of them. It may not have been you intent to canvass but you are. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing. Hkkingg has been editing WP for over a year. He is not "new to WP" at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, Hkkingg only has 323 edits so I assumed they might be new here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assumed so, but he is not. And 323 edits is not "new", I'd say, especially when you have participated in a number of AfDs, as is the case. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I do not consider myself a new editor, as I have been making edits for over a year and have participated in many AFDs. You have provided no details or evidence to support the claim that the sources I suggested are paid blogs or otherwise unreliable. Your blanket statement that they are all low quality seems unjust. Surely in comparison to American publications, they probably are of lower quality, but can't assume unreliable or paid articles without a deep analysis of the reasons, which you have failed to provide. However, the extensive coverage this series has received in its own country attests to its notability. Claiming that every single source is unreliable or paid for is unreasonable. Hkkingg (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, Well there was a quick chat over at WP:RSN about Fuchsia Magazine, where it was labeled an unreliable source. Social Diary, on the other hand, seems to lack a proper editorial team besides one editor, yet you view it as reliable. They even label themselves as a "lifestyle magazine." If you're inclined to overlook this as well the community consensus WP:NEWSORGINDIA, it's up to you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venus (SiriusXM)

Venus (SiriusXM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 15:29, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Scharold

Wally Scharold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recently restored after a prod deletion, it fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not appear to have serious coverage, and page plastered by "cn" comments. Although, looking at the article history, I think you mean "contested prod" rather than "restored after prod deletion". PatGallacher (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No PatGallacher ... the article was restored after being deleted [40]. Theroadislong (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding 6 x YouTube videos is not helful, it is not a reliable independent source. Theroadislong (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: None of the sources are independent or discuss the subject in any capacity beyond mentioning him as a performer/arranger/composer/producer. Reconrabbit 19:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis are you claiming none of the sources are independent? This seems to me to be an over-generalization of all the sources provided. Could you please provide evidence that supports this? Thank you. AimlessIdler (talk) 23:41, 13 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 14:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aero Composite Technologies

Aero Composite Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The companies only notable activity appears to be holding the rights to Quikkit Glass Goose for a short period before going into administration. Searching for them bring no useful results (note there is a separate but similarly named company in Malaysia), and sources about the Quikkit Glass Goose only mention them in passing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Urozhaine

Battle of Urozhaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is getting excessive. Yet another content fork article of a non-battle in this war. Uncountable such articles have been deleted already, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tokmak, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Chuhuiv, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Dvorichna, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Krasnohorivka, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Russian offensive, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Orlivka. Measures should be taken against users continously recreating content forks and lacking the capacity of discerning if a topic is notable or not.

Fighting at Urozhaine is not notable nor relevant enough for having an article of its own. It can be covered in any other article such as Southern Ukraine campaign or Urozhaine. There was already fighting in the village last year and it was covered at 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive. The content of this article is already pretty ridiculous, it is said "Little is known for the battle itself" so I don't know why do we have an article for it ("as it just started"; see WP:DEADLINE). This battle over a small settlement is very unlikely to become notable in the future, and if it does the time for having an article will be then and not now. Also a source from 25 April 2024 is given to confirm territorial changes of the battle that supposedly started on 1 May. Super Ψ Dro 12:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter. The article is clearly not notable, so it should be deleted. I don't get the "WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST" thing, I have just shown that this topic area is prone to repeated creation of non-notable content. Super Ψ Dro 07:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion of this article per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The term "Battle of Urozhaine" does not exist in reliable sources. The ISW-CTP citations here say nothing of a "battle of" or "battle for" the location and only make passing mentions of combat in the region. The NYT citation here does not mention Urozhaine either. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Better sourcing is needed rather than an article deletion Salfanto (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Salfanto has a huge record of creating problematic articles. Evidence is their talk page full of notices [41]. I am fairly convinced Salfanto does not have a good grasp of what notability is and they are voting to keep because deleting articles = bad. Super Ψ Dro 18:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say is that editors should put more effort into improving articles rather than nominating to delete them all the time. Articles should only be deleted if they have no notability whatsoever. For example, if only a few sources mention the article's topic. Salfanto (talk) 19:02, 14 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! 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is little to no mention of notability in the article and the only information is basically “we don’t know because it’s still going on”/“it’s too early to tell” Cowinatree (talk) 11:51, 22 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 noms contention that this was a "run of the mill event" is not accepted. Desertarun (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash

AfDs for this article:
1996 Abakan Ilyushin Il-76 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2nd nomination.
No significant lasting effects (demonstrated). Whilst it does have coverage, this is what would be considered a run-of-the-mill event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although it has no lasting effects, the number of fatalities is significantly larger than its peers in the afd listings around it. The article itself has multiple issues however and needs extensive work to be fixed. The article indefinitely does not fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not however due to the large number of fatalities in this incident. Another thing is that it has a larger count than the 2024 Ivanovo Ilyushin Il-76 crash, standing at 16. These two factors combined can be sought to keep this article in particular. Lolzer3000 (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The event does not have many reliable sources that can be used with the verifiability of sources lacking and doesn't exactly meet WP:GNG, fails WP:INDEPTH due to sources not providing much in depth analysis of the accident. One source used in the page [42], states that it is a first hand account of the accident which makes it a primary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And stating that an article should be kept because of another article is not an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:11, 17 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 Negative (Finnish band). Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Anatomy

Antti Anatomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication he's notable beyond his band. KaisaL (talk) 13:52, 11 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 WBNA. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD

AfDs for this article:
WBNM-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Might as well say that because couldn’t find any sources. --Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[43]] and [[44]]. If the consensus is not to keep, I'd recommend a merge to WBNA. User:Let'srun 03:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails GNG, nothing in the article or found in BEFORE shows anything meeting WP:SIRS. BEFORE found promo, ads, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Database record of technical station data. Fails WP:SIRS 1. "Facility Technical Data for WBNM-LD". Licensing and Management System. Federal Communications Commission.
TV screen shots, fails WP:SIRS 2. ^ Westerburg, Girard. "FM and TV DX (Analog TV images)". DXFM.com. Lexington, KY. Archived from the original on December 27, 2007. Retrieved September 7, 2019.
Database record 3. ^ "Digital TV Market Listing for WBNM-LD". RabbitEars.info. Retrieved April 20, 2024.

The above two sources are typical of the name mentions found in BEFORE and they do not discuss the subject with SIGCOV directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  17:53, 12 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 an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Stanaland

Eugene Stanaland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Subject fails WP:NPOL as a local politician and WP:NACADEMIC. Fails WP:GNG; none of the handful of reliable, secondary, independent sources in the article (or in WP:BEFORE search) pass the WP:SIGCOV test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:10, 11 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. The arguments to keep are remarkably weak. Only one of them provides any evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and the source therein has been convincingly rebutted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ordo Aurum Solis

Ordo Aurum Solis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems almost whole primary sources, thus seems to not pass wp:n Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AnandaBliss (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its been tagged as needing this for over 10 years. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is because wp:n applies, as does wp:fringe and wp:undue. Throwing out the rubbish is just what AFD is for. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with comment. As I write this article claims Ordo Aurum Solis was founded by George Stanton and Charles Kingold, names confirmed here in Encyclopedia.com. However, that encyclopedia doesn't say it was the Christian bishop George Stanton. It likely would have been a blasphemous scandal for him to do such a thing and the alleged founding is not and was never mentioned in bishop Stanton's Wikipedia biography. Stanton and Kingold are called "occultists" in another encyclopedia.com article [48]. KEEP because Ordo Aurum Solis qualifies for an entry in encyclopedia.com. 5Q5|✉ 12:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I de-Wikified George Stanton as not being the Christian bishop but an occultist. An online search for "George Stanton" occultist confirms this. 5Q5|✉ 09:43, 17 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! 22:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The current article is improperly sourced and/or WP:OR, promotional ("The current Grand Master Jean-Louis de Biasi continues to maintain the high moral standards of this tradition") and unsalvageable. If sufficient appropriate sources can ever be found to justify a new article, none of the existing content will be required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 26 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes

Brighton & Hove Breeze routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:42, 11 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! 22:57, 18 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! 22:47, 25 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) 21:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton & Hove Coaster routes

Brighton & Hove Coaster routes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable WP: Run-of-the-mill bus route, see discussion of similar recent deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brighton & Hove bus route 6 --woodensuperman 12:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be improved, not deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources presented here show that the Coaster routes (or at least route 12) does meet WP:GNG beyond routine coverage. Having a title "the best bus route in the world" evaluated by a national mainstream paper like The Times and noted as one of England's "most scenic" by another national mainstream paper like The Guardian [49] isn't something you see on your everyday bus route (unlike route 6 which is indeed non-notable). S5A-0043Talk 02:38, 13 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. With no further participation, I see no point in further relistings. There is a difference of opinion among experienced editors about the value of the sourcing so I'll have to close this as No Consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Are One (global collaboration song)

We Are One (global collaboration song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure which WP:N criteria to apply here, whether it's NMUSIC, WP:NEVENTS, or just GNG. However, it doesn't meet any of those. This PROMO was created based on coverage that doesn't seem to have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. An interesting point to note is that the article claims the song features 40 musicians from seven countries, but I couldn't find coverage in RS outside Pakistan, except this and this but they're PAID placements. Interestingly, the creator also once nominated it for FA. Seems quite UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:12, 19 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purwati (internist)

Purwati (internist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written with a promotional tune and does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, as the published research output is relatively modest, as is her academic career (Scopus H-index of 7; very few citations for 1st-author papers, total of 142). In terms of general notability, the coverage of her patent is not high by international standards, nor is there evidence of impact of the work (other than patent filing). FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Hello, I agree that the subject of this article has not yet gained international recognition. However, in Indonesia, he is regarded as a prominent stem cell expert who frequently garners attention from major, reputable Indonesian mass media.
He holds the distinction of being a MURI record holder for receiving the most Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Stem Cell Field in 2022, a testament to his significant contributions. Despite the challenge of finding additional sources regarding the impact of his research, these achievements underscore his expertise and standing in the field.
He was partner of the COVID-19 Response Acceleration Task Force during Covid-19 pandemic to advancing research, particularly in investigating Drug and Stem Cell Combination Regimens in 2020. Furthermore, his expertise is actively leveraged by Universitas Airlangga and hospitals to enhance stem cell services.
In 2019, as stated in the article, she received national recognition, being listed as an 'Indonesian Young Scientist' by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education.
I remain guided by the notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability). He is quite well-known in Indonesia despite not being internationally renowned. His notability has also been explained in the article through his career and achievements. Rahmatdenas (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
none of the sources looks reliable, with some being self-published, and the burden is on you to show that these sources are reliable, see WP:BURDEN. As far as resources goes, this might all be a hoax as work around stem cells and COVID is highly cited, and I cannot see anything that suggests that.
PS: you mean "she" not "he" FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sign that she passes WP:NACADEMIC, her top research doesn't even cross 50 citations. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For certain her h-factors is low, and she has no major international awards to indicate peer recognition. What I also find disturbing is the mention of using STEM cell transplant for immuno diseases and some cancers as one of her patents. In fact I am pretty certain that these are either close to or already being trialed in the UK by others, perhaps elsewhere as well. There is no indication that she is involved in any of that, otherwise there would be mentions in the UK Grauniad or the New York Times in the sources. If you have the will local patents are easy, but I have seen some local ones which would never be enforceable internationally. Hence I end up being very unconvinced by both the article and it's defence. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:40, 15 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 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Glincosky

Bernard Glincosky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American actor. I’m the creator of this page but after editing I realized subject does not have as many sources as I thought they may have had. I’ll leave it up to you guys whether you think it deserves an article or not.HeroicWarriors (talk) 11:23, 11 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. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)

Malhun Hatun (fictional character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you find sources that can be used to establish notability, please identify them in this discussion. General comments that sources exist aren't taken seriously.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wouldn't typically a third but there's some ongoing conversation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier

Wilmer Street Ferry Pier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ferry pier in Hong Kong that doesn’t seem notable. I couldn’t find a suitable redirect target but a merge or redirect may be possible. Mccapra (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense to me. Mccapra (talk) 12:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of demolished piers in Hong Kong then redirect, as suggested by @Cunard. Found a few other mentions:
Oblivy (talk) 06:21, 14 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati

Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a religious leader lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There may be sources in other languages, in which case it would be good if someone could add them. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I’d support that. There’s a job to do in sorting out the sources to base the article on what’s genuinely independent and reliable. Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 17 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! 05:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 26 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 11:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Station Productions

Dream Station Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure how this even meets WP:NCORP. The coverage seem to be inadequate per WP:SIRS, and this page is PROMO. I strongly smell UPE. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saqib,
The page was approved by the admins when it was created in 2019 I guess. I don't know why you are making it a personal issue. I suggest to strongly keep. The sources are independent. Aanuarif (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aanuarif, Aanuarif, Just because a page was approved in the past doesn't mean it can't be nominated for deletion now. I'm curious which admin approved it? I would like to ask them what basis they used. The problem isn't just whether the coverage is independent or not, but it's pretty clear they don't meet the WP:SIRS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No @Saqib, that's what you believe. Aanuarif (talk) 10:46, 11 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qudsia Ali

Qudsia Ali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject doesn't meet the NACTOR. Why? Because their roles in TV shows/films listed on the BLP are minor, not major. Additionally, the GNG also does not meet due to the absence of sig/in-depth coverage about her. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meeting WP:NACTOR. Nominator is unable to understand any rationale, nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. The roles she played have received significant coverage. Providing some coverage from reliable sources for proving my point.

One can check by reading those sources, how much important roles she has played in her career. Her roles have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Libraa2019, That reply didn't quite answer my question. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Libraa2019 has done a great job showing notability. Marleeashton (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Marleeashton, But I can't see tha! May you can provide WP:THREE best coverage that would establish GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t need to be proven correct, this is about consensus. @Libraa2019 just gave you many sources and has more than satisfied what you requested. Marleeashton (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just about reaching a consensus; it's also about providing reasoned arguments based on policy to justify whether a page should be kept or deleted. Merely stating WP:PERNOM doesn't suffice. Please understand that I mean no offense. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the sources provided by Libraa2019, there is nothing that can be used towards establishing notability. The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of the BBC piece which is an interview. I'd be willing to re-evalute should someone be able to provide some sources that do not fall under NEWSORGINIDA, are not interviews, talk about her in detail, and are otherwise considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unable to understand how suddenly policies of wikipidea became that much strict. You are voting delete in most of the AFD's discussion initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here i presented 11 reliable and approved news sources but you call them WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is a little bias. The Express Tribune is a leading English newspaper from Pakistan, Same goes for The Nation, DAWN, Daily Times, Daily Jang and others mentioned by me. i did'nt mentioned any unreliable source and they are not WP:NEWSORGINDIA as these sources are used in most of the B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles. Please again review these sources.
  • The Express Tribune mentioned her most of the work in this source [72]
  • Daily Times states XXL features big names from the Pakistani media industry with Qudsia Ali in the main role [73]
  • BBC News states It has been three years since Pakistani actress Qudsia Ali stepped into the industry but she has been successful in her every project [74]
  • DAWN states Another dissonant note is the casting of Qudsia Ali as the “fat character” Tania who is constantly scolded for being overweight, despite being barely 10 pounds above a normal frame [75]

And the list goes on. One can self check on google. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, No policy or even GNG has become stricter overnight; it's just that the community at large were overlooking Pakistani articles citing unreliable sources or dubious coverage. Despite numerous explanations across various pages, it seems you're still struggling to grasp that we're not deeming these Pakistani publications unreliable; rather, we're questioning the coverage provided by these sources, which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's as simple as that. It's regrettable to say that COMPETENCE is definitely missing here. Please take a moment to review WP:GNG and WP:SIRS and try to comprehend it. Merely being in the news or receiving some ROTM coverage or paid placement is, while OK for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, you are assuming things yourself, The Express Tribune is a reliable daily newspaper and so as others mentioned above. If you are claiming they are paid or dubious coverage then where is the evidence?? And if they are covered under WP:NEWSORGINDIA then where is the consensus?? I dont see any such thing on that page. You can start a seperate discussion about reliability of these sources if you consider them paid or dubious but currently just because you are against these reliable and approved sources does'nt make them unreliable or paid. You can include admins here as i am sure if these sources are dubious then wikipidea seniors would not permit these sources in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles but that is not the case. Thank You. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it seems you're not getting my point OR perhaps you're choosing not to hear it. I'm not labeling these sources unreliable. Please give another look at my comments. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking it to somerwhere else, i got your point and also mentioned, please share an evidence that these are dubious or unreliable coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess sometimes we just need to rely on WP:COMMONSENSE to understand what sort of coverage amounts to paid placements. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are rejecting more than 12 reliable sources on the basis of common sense. That page does'nt even mention such things. As i earlier said, you are assuming things yourself and accusing these authentic newspapers of dubious and unreliable coverage without any evidence. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sources presented seem to show she had significant roles in notable productions and that is the requirement to meet WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, @Libraa2019 provided four references above [date stamped 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)] to claim that the subject played a major role in Kuch Ankahi. However, upon reviewing all references, I couldn't find a single mention of her playing a major role in Kuch Ankahi. Therefore, how does she meet NACTOR here? The same applies to other dramas; she didn't have major roles, and if she did, the Short film XXL, themselves aren't noteworthy enough. I hope this clarifies the issue. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is presenting sources, then you are calling them unreliable. If someone is counting roles of her then you are calling them minor roles despite her roles received significant coverage. Sorry to say but i dont understand. And i never claim she played a major role in Kahi Ankahi. Its your assumptions by reading those sources may be as all the sources mentioned her role as significant/impactful whether negatively like this [76] or positively like these [77] [78] but the thing is that her roles are receiving coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:14, 13 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 Malawi Broadcasting Corporation#Anne Kadammanja. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Kadammanja

Anne Kadammanja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing much available to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:57, 11 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! 05:14, 19 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. While there was some !voting for merging or keeping, the consensus of editors, when weighing against policies and guidelines, was for deletion. Some suggested salting these titles. I'm not sure salting is appropriate in this circumstance (1 merge, 1 deletion AfD each under a different name) and so am not doing this, but without prejudice to some other uninvolved administrator choosing to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EcoCute (Japan)

EcoCute (Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a recreation/fork of EcoCute (old revision link) at a new title with unnecessary disambiguation. The outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EcoCute in February was to merge it to Air source heat pump. They should be re-merged absent a changed consensus to split the content back out into its own article, such as via a WP:SPLIT discussion or WP:DRV. SilverLocust 💬 18:26, 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) 10:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started the previous discussion but have only just now become aware of this one. Also Wikiproject Energy was on the previous article but until now this article had no Wikiprojects on this talk page. Is there any way you could automatically notify people who were watching the previous article? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: EcoCute is trademark with millions of units used in Japan, some number of units also used in oversea, hopefully more number in area other than Japan. Installations, Japan and oversea case study list Article context and external link shows reality. I had created article EcoCute in July 2008‎, in January 2024, nominated for delete, then merged to, but eliminated section EcoCute in Air source heat pump thereafter. EcoCute (Japan) is based on number of units used/working in Japan, so that this is eligible to be an article in fact with (Japan). As Generic trademark, no one nominate trademark Coca-Cola merger into Coke nor Jeep into automobile, neither Wikipedia® registered trademark neither. EcoCute is registered and generic trademark. I shall repeat once again:
Once an article A deleted and marge to another article B, even A redirected to B, anyone can edit article B include word A in context of article B, but long term in future, it is possible/happen the word A may disappear from B due to number of editing by many editor/user. No one able to guarantee such sad thing if article A is worthful. This is my understanding. This comment is in My opinon on 12:46, 7 February 2024. If this nomination be resulted as merge back to Air source heat pump again, or other, merge or delete nomination will be happened again and again. Independent article EcoCute (Japan) is much safer from delete/merge, and contribute CO2 reduction with implemented efficiency. --Namazu-tron (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: As I argued previously, if I remember right, nowadays this is not sufficiently different from other air source heat pumps to merit a separate article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: As I have only now added projects to the talk page will they still be automatically notified of this discussion? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, again: History of EcoCute merged after discussion in to Air source heat pump as section, then section deleted/eliminated without any talk, then ECoCute (Jpapan) created. Now EcoCute (Japan) is on AfD/ Merged again. If resulted to mereged in this discuss again and again, can anyone garantee protect/not be eliminated section EcoCute or EcoCute (Japan) by Banners like SfD (Section for Detele) for discussion, KS (Keep this Section) or something else.
Following step 1) - 4) is the editing history.
1) EcoCute, First AfD - EcouCute AfD Discussion resulted as merge on 17 February 2024
2) Then deletedm and merged into Air source heat pump EcoCute deleted, merged as section and redirected on 18 February 2024
3) Sudden Deleted section EcoCute on 27 March 2024 from Article Air source heat pump without any talk/discuss.
4) EcoCute, redirect to Fresh article EcoCute (Japan) on 25 April 2024--Namazu-tron (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)--Namazu-tron (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with keep, note that you only get one vote so you should consolidate your argument into one section or re-label one of them as a comment DCsansei (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know nobody can guarantee that a merged section would not be deleted. I agree with @MrOllie that the section was too lengthy and only covered one product. However as this seems to have been very ahead of its time I believe it should be covered briefly in the air source heat pump article along with some other companies and/or products. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I deleted the section because it was a WP:UNDUE problem and looked like an advertisement for one company's product in that context. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pls See section of talk page of EcoCute (Japan), '''Manufactures of EcoCute in Japan.''' EcoCute is not one company’s products, all mfg./vender, equally competing in market with named EcoCute, product type of Air source heat pump, as article said, to identify, not confused with other type of Air source heat pump by both seller and customer. I would like all you here to review for my long opinions on other page/section.--Namazu-tron (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a registered trademark. Whether they are manufactured directly by that company or under license from that company is a distinction without a difference. MrOllie (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Number of companies produce variety number of models, size, performance and sell/buy price and others. Minimum requirement is both Refrigerant is CO2 and making hot water, it is named as EcoCute in fair markets. Telling/ display/ indication of word EcoCute in sales promotion is no advantage, it just shows merely type of heat pump, not such as gas nor electric heating.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If some other companies and/or variety of products put on market in future, and is comparable or superior, than or equal capability to EcoCute reduce CO2/ emission and Greenhouse gas, that will be a time to merge these as one type of heat pump in Air source heat pump sections.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and specifically Do not merge. Either it is notable enough for a standalone article or it isn't, and if it isn't it definitely should not be dumped into a general article - Wikipedia isn't a catalog, we should not be writing about individual product offerings in generic articles like that. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 10 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! 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Top wording changed/edited today. As (The EcoCute is an energy-efficient, type of Air source heat pump and only for water heating as the single hot water supply system, not use for air conditioning or alike.) Millions units sold EcoCute use Air source heat pump, air conditioner use Air source heat pump as well, Refrigerator use Heat pump. Car use Engine. Even trade mark Coca-Cola and Jeep, all these has an article on Wikipedia here.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: and SALT both this and EcoCute for six months. It is clear that the title-gaming author has no intention of abiding by the result of a merge in this AfD any more than they did in the previous AfD. Any additional attempts to circumvent consensus by title-gaming should be handled with a topic ban. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Comment: As of article version 05:15, 19 May 2024, JIS JIS C 9220：2018 in section “EcoCute machine basics”, it should be noted that no equivalent total system, EcoCute is 1: heat pump air sourced + 2: hot water storage tank + 3: supply with CO2 Refrigerant. Air source heat pump is describe step 1: only and functional usage is for air conditioner, bathing, underfloor heating and etc., and any conceivable use connecting to room air conditioning unit or to water unit or any unit for purpose. JIS C 9220 standards clearly defined/request associated hot water tank mandatory as single system. I am not sure standard for air source heat pump is, but sure that it may not defined/request associated hot water tank. My “keep” position is rationally with/based reasons, facts and differences.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already !voted above. Owen× ☎ 09:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for quick advice. Noticed the rule.--Namazu-tron (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many air source heat pump systems in Europe include hot water tanks. Certainly Ecocute should be mentioned in the Air source heat pump history section as it was so ahead of its time. It was a great pioneer but nowadays others have caught up. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A brief mention would not be amiss (like, one sentence), but making more than 1/3 of the article about Ecocute is far too much. MrOllie (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT/redirect and consider topic-banning Namazu-tron from this topic due to apparent undisclosed COI. DCsansei has found some references that do include significant coverage of the subject in major Japanese publications such as NHK [79] and Yomiuri Shimbun ([80]). However, this coverage is exclusively negative, and the state of the article as written by Namazu-tron does not even begin to incorporate this information. signed, Rosguill talk 15:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, get the clear sense we're dealing with a COI/UPE here. The tendentious, unrelenting recreation/reversion pattern and the promotional tone suggest, at the very least, a strong POV. Rosguill, please ping me if you take this to AN/I or such. Owen× ☎ 16:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Archived NHK and Yomiuri Shimbun site are dated almost 10 years ago. Capable Japanese mfg. seems solve the problems, and no social topics on TV nor Newspaper nowadays, and I’m no intention to hide these topics for edit. My edit thinking/idea for “basic”section seems almost dried up now. I’m seeing Japanese EcoCute (エコキュート) has section health hazards　(健康被害） and etc.(その他), and my plan has to be to add these topic as next step in edit, and I will edit for problem/negative/positive topics by taking time or days.--Namazu-tron (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There appears to be a consensus not to keep, but there's no consensus yet for delete, merge, or redirect. A topic ban is not a valid AfD outcome; that discussion should be had at AN or ANI.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I do think that the past coverage I dug up constitutes sufficient significant coverage of the subject to pass the GNG but I've edited my vote into a comment. I think merge is the best outcome here given the state of the article. DCsansei (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Do not merge: We do not publish product brochures or sell sheets, but that's what IMHO this pagespace best resembles. For the purposes of this discussion, nothing in this article should be used in a Wikipedia article on air pumps without a critical screening. The behavior of User:Namazu-tron in this process is a separate (but not unrelated) issue. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created a report at the COI noticeboard where User:Namazu-tron might explain their fierce loyalty to these two pages. BusterD (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to created a report, Thank you. --Namazu-tron (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Initial version EcoCute in 2008 has full of section “history”, and Air source heat pump did not have section “history” before marge EcoCute into Air source heat pump version 27 January 2024 which keeps afterward section history with almost full content from merged EcoCute nowaday, this is my pleasure in editing. JIS in 2011 revised in 2018 Standards issued with titled C 9220：2018“Residential heat pump water heaters (家庭用ヒートポンプ給湯機)”, which illustrated requisite be to heat pump and water heaters storage tank as the single of heat pump unit + water heater unit with storage tank as a whole. This is new and innovating type of product, named ECoCute though, placed in market in 2001, and record cumulative 9 million units by 2023.“Residential heat pump water heaters” is not a part of Air source heat pump. It is the product appeared consequence of technical/engineering innovation day by day. ISO has not issued standards equivalent to JIS C 9220：2018 yet, hopefully they issue in future in coming years. ISO: Heat pump water heater for hot water supply Wikipedia should accept new product as the article as the internet encyclopedia, when term EcoCute deleted or merged then disappear, it brings reader is hard to find out that term, such consequence is not the purpose of existence of Wikipedia. Articles quality is important, also user friendly/usability is important as donation based entire Wikipedia/Wikimedia system. We don’t want to see/hear that AI and/or GPT indicate/speak term/word neither “EcoCute” nor “Residential heat pump water heaters” in Wikipedia.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISO standards added, reference only.--Namazu-tron (talk) 08:59, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 07:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean South America

Caribbean South America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED since creation in 2004. Not mentioned in any Google Books source, so likely fails WP:GNG. Formally proposing deletion after rejected WP:PROD. NLeeuw (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I never saw on any geography books that there is a Caribbean part of South America. Culturally speaking, I know that Guyana feels closer to the Caribbean than to South America, but I’m not sure this is worthy of an article. Contributor892z (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guyana is generally considered part of the West Indies. SportingFlyer T·C 21:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally considered by whom? Not by me, certainly, and I don't ever remember hearing anyone say that. Spanish-speaking South Americans are barely aware of the existence of Guyana and the two other Guianas, Surinam and Guyane and in my experience never mention them. (Brazilians are a bit different because they have territorial claims.) However, none of that alters the fact that the Guianas are in South America, not the West Indies. Athel cb (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geographically they are certainly in South America. Contributor892z (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Study this one carefully.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:59, 11 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Hope Publishers

AfDs for this article:
Seeds of Hope Publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Delete
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence of notability. A mixture of references, including sourced published by Seeds of Hope Publishers, at least on not mentioning the company at all, ones which are only just mention it, and so on... JBW (talk) 20:47, 12 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 GMA Network original programming#Former original programming. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Saturday/Sunday Report

AfDs for this article:
GMA Saturday/Sunday Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits on GNews, GSearch and GNews Archives. Most hits are old TV guide lists. Suggest redirecting to List_of_GMA_Network_original_programming#Former_original_programming as WP:ATD. --Lenticel (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The suggested reference in the old AfD is from GMA's news network.
  • The suggested essay WP:TVSHOW that is used to argue for keep is well, an essay. It's better to follow WP:GNG and cite a reliable sources to support its notability.
  • It was part of a mass AfD which probably made it harder for editors then to scrutinize each article's merit during that particular period. --Lenticel (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also there is also lack of coverage by GMA programming (old shows) and reliable source is original research. This article should be delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:OR and WP:RS. Icarus58 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I decided to delete no redirect immediately to avoid multiple redirects for old programs since it is not advisable. Icarus58 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GMA Network original programming#Former original programming per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 04:58, 17 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! 05:23, 19 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 11:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Kerdyk, Jr.

William H. Kerdyk, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements because the non-trivial sources are all localised/ultra-specialised in nature. Also, this article was created by Lisabofita, who has a self-admitted conflict of interest and paid editing relationship with the article's subject, and also moved it from draft to article namespace without going through the articles for creation process properly. Graham87 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Florida. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The language used in this article and the sources used are promotional in nature. HarukaAmaranth 春香 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, please specify the particular language of concern, and someone can review and revise accordingly. The language of the page is not grounds for deletion; instead, efforts should focus on improving the article. Regarding the sources, I have included a list below of non-promotional sources. If you believe any specific sources are promotional, please explain your rationale. Additionally, could you please clarify what constitutes a promotional source? Are you suggesting that the individual paid to have these articles placed? Please provide clarification and any evidence or reasoning to support such claims. Lisabofita (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Promotion is using wikipedia to further a goal, such as boosting search result rankings. You don't have to pay the source to have it placed for it to be promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If any part of the article sounds promotional please feel free to edit it or revise it. That is not grounds for deletion of a notable politician and philanthropist with dozens of articles. I have tried my best to not use any promotional language. If you can point out which exact parts are promotional, they can be revised by someone. Lisabofita (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have been compensated for writing this article and have disclosed my affiliation on my userpage. Mr. Kedryk is a local politician in my area. We were introduced via a friend with the intention of my assisting in creating a page for him. I am uncertain if I am permitted to vote, so I am abstaining from doing so. Instead, I am posting a comment outlining my reasons for why the article should be retained.

He is a local politician with dozens of news articles about him. He meets:

WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage
WP:ANYBIO: Has won multiple awards
WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability:
Coverage includes:
4 articles in Community Newspapers 1, 2, 3, 4
Miami Herald
South Floriad Business and Waelth Magazine
Weekend Golfer
Lifystyle Magazine
Gables Insider.Lisabofita (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found additional coverage, not presently in the article:
- Miami Herald - This is very in-depth
- communitynewspapers.com - This is very in-depth
- .miamiherald.com 1
- miamiherald.com 2
- therealdeal.com - It is about a real estate deal, but should still count towards WP:BASIC. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Lisabofita (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't fully looked at BASIC, and I'm not sure I'll be able to for this one, but the well-known and significant awards of ANYBIO refer to things like Nobels and Pulitzers. The awards listed unfortunately don't quite make the cut. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Noting that a previous version of this page, Bill Kerdyk Jr., was WP:G11 speedily deleted a few months ago. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The previous version is accessible on archive.org. Personally, I believe it warranted deletion due to its overly promotional nature and lack of citations for much of the content. In contrast, my version is significantly improved, devoid of promotional elements, and includes more citations. Lisabofita (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the creator being paid to make this page, I don't think Kerdyk is notable. Serving as vice mayor of a small city does not establish notability, and the articles cited on the page seem to mostly be articles from smaller publications or only mention him in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Miami Herald is a widely recognized publication with a longstanding history dating back to 1903. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to say it is non-notable. The subject has been featured in three distinct articles on Miami Herald, further attesting to their significance. Additionally, Community Newspapers has been in existence since 1967 and has also published several articles featuring the subject. It is worth noting that both of these publications have their own Wikipedia pages, underscoring their credibility and notability.
    Moreover, numerous articles provide comprehensive coverage of the subject, including 1, 2, 3, 4, Miami Herald, South Florida Business and Wealth Magazine, Weekend Golfer and Lifestyle Magazine. I would like to emphasize that these articles offer substantive insights rather than mere passing mentions.
    If you have not had the opportunity to review these articles thoroughly, I encourage you to do so. Upon closer examination, you will find that they provide valuable and detailed information about the subject. Lisabofita (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't even list any Wikipedia policies with your above statement which is concerning. Read up on our general notability guidelines and then look at the specific notability guidelines for politicians. – The Grid (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems you didn't read my prior comments. I named 3 policies above. How about WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability???
    WP:NPOL: Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. He has dozens of in-depth articles.
    WP:ANYBIO: He has won multiple awards. Although someone has argued these are not notable awards. I do not agree as they are all from well known local organizations and he has at least 6 awards.
    Lisabofita (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourced primarily to promotional puff pieces from hyperlocal media.-KH-1 (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please identify the articles you consider to be promotional puff pieces and explain why you think so for each one. Many articles discuss his political activities and are independently authored by reputable sources like the Miami Herald and Community Newspapers, both of which have presence on Wikipedia. Are you suggesting that some articles might be paid or sponsored content? Lisabofita (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being the vice mayor of a relatively small city is certainly not an WP:NPOL pass and all of the awards fall well short of an WP:ANYBIO pass-which is meant to be applied to national and international award like a Pullitzer Prize and not something like the "citizen of the year" from your town's Rotary Club. Additionally, WP:POLOUTCOMES has dictated over the years that local coverage of local politicians is to be discounted and a higher level of coverage is needed to establish WP:GNG. I'd also recommend the author of this article read WP:BLUDGEON. Given that paid-for articles on this subject have already been deleted at Bill Kerdyk Jr. and William H. ‘Bill’ Kerdyk, Jr., I believe that WP:SALTing may be needed as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I am not trying to BLUDGEON, but I must respond to your objections. Why do you think he doesn't meet WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"???
Please note that I was unaware of previous attempts to create a page for him. Those submissions were not made by me. After reviewing an old version on Archive.org, I agree that its deletion was justified due to its promotional tone and lack of sufficient citations. Therefore, the previous deletions should not influence the evaluation of my current submission. Lisabofita (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I explained my reasoning. This is a textbook example of BLUDGEONing, which can discourage others from participating in the AfD. At this point I would recommend stepping back and let the AfD run its course with new editors giving their opinions. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can COI accounts even participate in these discussions? I guess they can as it's not an article page but I think closing admin has to be aware of the COI. – The Grid (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can as long as the COI is disclosed. A COI/PAID editor badgering every editor's delete vote could possibly be a breach of Wiki-etiquette, though. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I blocked this editor sitewide due to disruption but made it a partial block *just* so they could participate here (the results weren't unexpected, but I thought it was fairer this way, if anything). See their user talk page. Graham87 (talk) 19:03, 14 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. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H. B. Garlock

H. B. Garlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a missionary who does not appear to be notable. Lack of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:51, 11 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 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nii Atakora Mensah

Nii Atakora Mensah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a content developer who does not appear to be notable. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 11 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) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oba Sefiu Oyebola Adeyeri III, Ajirotutu I

Oba Sefiu Oyebola Adeyeri III, Ajirotutu I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of someone who is either a non-notable local ruler, or possibly, per this source, a fraudster. Mccapra (talk) 07:47, 11 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western Caribbean zone

Western Caribbean zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This reads somewhat similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Caribbean in that it fails to identify a specific, notable topic. Searching for "Western Caribbean zone" yields no useful results at all, and while the sources here are citations for specific facts, I can't find anything that discusses this as a region as a whole. Describing these historical eras seems like original research when combining what happened in some places over a long time without being able to describe their relationships to a specific region, rather than just about Central America or History of Central America with a bit of adjacent Mexico and Colombia tossed in. Reywas92Talk 20:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge... In response here, I initiated this article in 2010 as a way to incorporate the Afro-Carribean diaspora into Central American history. Typically as it appears to me, work focused on Central America tends to leave out the important role played, as the original contribution did, that there is a complex set of African components in the region that were always connected to the the Caribbean, hence the Western Caribbean zone.
This includes, initially, the role of African groups like the Miskitos or Miskitos Zambos, with their international connections, to English colonies in particular, and then the use the English made of them to promote their own illegal (in Spanish eyes) trade with the region.
This was followed by the large scale migration from the English speaking Caribbean in conjunction with the building of the Panama Canal, and the actions of the fruit companies in particular. These communities are connected thought their adherence (today) to the English language (though many are bi-lingual), English customs, such as the Anglican church and other lesser religious groups that have home in the English Caribbean, to include customs like playing cricket.
I am perfectly willing to accept a merger with other areas, or a renaming, but I think that deletion of its content at least along the lines established here, is unnecessary and the piece is worthy of retention as a topic in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepsie (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think History of Central America would be a good place to include most of this then. I agree with your comments that this is an important part of history, but even if this "zone" term is sometimes used, I don't think it needs to be a separate page like this. Reywas92Talk 00:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are definitely sources to support the term. I don't know why the conclusion is that there are no useful results at all - it seems to have been a British geographic term, and countries self-describe as being inside the zone. [81] SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I DO NOT agree on deleting this article because there is some important components that can help with the article. I'm currently not certain if a merger is possible while there there's a way to improve the nature of this article or we could just keep it as is while improving it. 20chances (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 11 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. Owen× ☎ 21:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Basin

Caribbean Basin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, 1 source providing a dictionary definition, plus an WP:UNSOURCED quasi-duplicate of Caribbean#Countries and territories list. Whatever else this article might have been intended for, is better served by List of Caribbean islands or Caribbean Sea. It has been a redirect in the past, that could work instead of deletion, but then we must agree on the best target. NLeeuw (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The discussion has evolved a lot since I commenced it three days ago. Now 4 editors (including myself as nom) are in favour of Disambiguation, and 2 editors are in favour of Keep, while nobody is in favour of outright Deletion or a Redirect anymore. Just want to note that, because the latter two are the only options I suggested in my original rationale above. NLeeuw (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Reywas92: I see you've just turned it into a redirect to Caribbean. I'm not opposed to that outcome, but isn't this a bit of a premature move after I have just initiated this AfD? NLeeuw (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, I was using the easy-merge tool and had the page up since before your nomination so I didn't even see that when I saved it five minutes later! I undid that and will vote redirect to Caribbean. The one source is an analysis of the breadth of terms that can apply to this region, all of which can have different geographic and political definitions, so I see no basis for a separate article as if this were a distinct or well-defined concept. The see also links for the US program use the political definition that includes some non-bordering countries, so this is pointless. Reywas92Talk 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha I already thought that might have been going on as we acted almost at the same time. No worries. :) NLeeuw (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In light of the comment below I would also support disambiguation However, I am still strongly opposed to keeping the page. Even with the added information, I don't see the need for stand-alone article. The origin of the term for the Caribbean Basin Initiative belongs on that article, and the rest is just generically about the region. Yes, the term is used – inconsistently, including for this Initiative and as described by [82] – but even if Basin countries are related in various ways however defined, a separate page isn't warranted. Reywas92Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not OR or SYNTH - in fact, a very easy WP:BEFORE search as the defined area is discussed by many books and scholarly articles dating back years including [83] [84] [85] [86]. These just scratch the surface - there was a history section at one point that was deleted for lack of sourcing, wondering if restoring and sourcing it would be a good idea. SportingFlyer T·C 22:03, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into a disambiguation page to disambiguate w/ Caribbean, Caribbean Basin Initiative, Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983, Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act and Caribbean Basin Trade and Partnership Act. It's clear from the vast array of reliable sources and uses that "Caribbean Basin" is a generic term for the Caribbean Sea and countries in the region. The article as it stands relies on one source to separate out Barbados and the Bahamas as not part of the Caribbean Basin, but most other uses include all regional countries in the term and treat it as an equivalent term to "Caribbean region." It would be original research for an article to rely on a single (and tendentious) definition to somehow conjure "Caribbean Basin" into existence as a separate term. My reason for turning this into a disambig page rather than a redirect is to cover the various U.S. government laws and initiatives employing the term (and that include the Bahamas and Barbados, natch). Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguate per Dclemens' sensible reasoning and a lot of the competing definitions which may lead to a WP:POVFORK with Caribbean if this is not done. I think that's the first time I've gotten to vote that in an AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A DP might be the best solution here. I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome either. NLeeuw (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I've expanded the article with reliable sources. Based on the sources I've seen which I've added to the article (see article), this appears to be a specific geographical region, which in part, but not exclusively, is determined by political and economic considerations. In someway, similar to the Middle Belt, and other regional articles, etc. The subject is notable in its own right, with plenty of WP:RS discussing the topic in dephth, and maybe we should be mindful not to confuse the general reader between a geographic region/basin (which are notable), and an economic or trade program like Caribbean Basin Initiative, instituted by statute law like Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act of 1983. There is a huge difference between these and perhaps we should be mindful not to lump this article to other articles which would be wrong, and might also confuse the reader. In my view, to merge with another article would be like discussing two separate unrelated subjects in the same article. In the end, it may push the community to have to create the same article which was previously created and deleted, just to separate the two topics, and would send us back to square one. I haven't even scratched the surface, but from the sources I've seen so far, I believe this article can be expanded even further. On a side note, would the nom kindly transclude this AfD to to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa so that Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora are also automatically alerted? African Diaspora get their notifications from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups or Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Africa. Many thanks.Tamsier (talk)
    These additions don't deal with the fact that there is no consensus among the sources on what defines the "Caribbean Basin" versus just the "Caribbean." As the current revision of the article notes, the US Caribbean Basin Initiative excluded Cuba and Nicaragua. One sentence says "This means countries like Barbados and The Bahamas, which are culturally and politically Caribbean, are not included.[2]" (And the list in the article does indeed exclude them.) Later on, a statement in the article says "It is customary to include Bermuda and the Bahamian Archipelago within this region, although they are located in the Atlantic Ocean outside the arc, since they share the cultural and historical legacy of the countries of the Lesser Antilles." So what is it? The more the article gets developed, the more it will just turn into a content fork of Caribbean. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent observation. NLeeuw (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dclemens1971, I think that is a matter for the reliable secondary sources to decide, not for us to define it, as to try and do so here would constitute WP:OR. We report on what the reliable secondary sources say with respect to weight, and leave it to the general reader to make up their mind. If we go down the route of trying to define it here, that would constitute WP:OR. The differences in definition as per sources, however, should not be grounds for deletion. In situations like that, we simply report per weight as per Wiki guidelines.Tamsier (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if the reliable sources don't even have a common agreement on what "Caribbean Basin" means or if it's different from "Caribbean," why bother having an article about it? Do we need an article to debate the semantics of the term "Caribbean Basin," because that's what we have now. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is general agreement. Part of the problem is that the agreement doesn't match what's currently in the actual article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this still isn't really a "specific geographical region" in that the geographical area/first sentence isn't even accurate in most cases. The book you added "The Caribbean Basin: An International History" does include Barbados and the Bahamas, as well as El Salvador. Certainly we can acknowledge that Caribbean island nations are historically and politically related to the Central American and northern South American countries, but I don't feel like we need a stand-alone article to say that. We could draftify the page, but I'm not sure what sort of expansion you say can be done actually has to be done here – and not somewhere like History of Central America or History of the Caribbean – that wouldn't just be duplicative or an unnecessary content fork. Reywas92Talk 21:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But why does there need to be a specific definition in order to show notability? Why can't we say some sources say X and some say Y and have it be notable? Why is an editing decision coming in the way of notability? SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's less about notability and more about the WP:CONTENTFORK issue. If the article really encompasses any number of countries associated with the Caribbean region and/or the Caribbean sea, then the term should disambiguate/redirect to "Caribbean." That covers the territory. We only need a freestanding article if there is evidence that the term "Caribbean Basin" means something specific and different from "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I liked reading this link from the article. It comes from an ecological perspective but the point is that many different organizations, discliplines, or analysts may use several names with different and inconsistent definitions for the region and subregions. You could make a big complex Euler diagram out of them. But just because each of these names is used in depth does not mean there's something more to say that justifies the need for a separate article. So sure, maybe Caribbean Basin is notable and I am making an editing decision – there's just not enough to say that this is needed as another article (WP:NOPAGE). Perhaps a page similar to Terminology of the British Isles could break out the differences when sources say X or Y. Reywas92Talk 17:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Such a terminology article only seems warranted when a simple disambiguation page is not enough to point readers to what they are looking for. I think a DP is the proper place to start. NLeeuw (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I still don't really agree - there's lots of scholarly and international sources which use the term "Caribbean Basin" and the book Politics and Development in the Caribbean Basin: Central America and the Caribbean in the New World Order (Grugel, 2015) discusses how the term was used by the United States government in the 1980s to give a specific geographic definition to an area where "Caribbean" is not necessarily a specific geographic identifier. That book also notes El Salvador is included in spite not touching the Caribbean, as confirmed by this paper. There's something geographically notable here - it's not just a superfluous term. SportingFlyer T·C 23:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As noted above in my earlier comment, it is outside the remit of Wikipedia editors to try to define terms which are not already defined or covered by reliable secondary sources. Our notability guideline is very clear as to what deserves a stand-alone article and what doesn't. In my view, as the one who expanded the article and added other reliable sources, I believe this article meets WP:GNG. Our policy on WP:WEIGHT makes it absolutely clear as to how to give weight to sources with differing views. The issue of weight is not a ground for deletion as noted above. The content fork argument does not apply here, because the scope is different from the other articles mentioned by other editors. This article focuses more on a particular geographical region/basin which in part, but not exclusively is motivated by economic/trade, instituted by US law. I contend that, moving this article to another would end up causing more harm to that article and confuses the reader. Sending a fully sourced notable article to a disambiguation page not only defeats the purpose of our disambiguation process, but also cheats the general reader looking for this article. Of course the article can be expanded even further and much better, but that is not a ground for deletion, neither is variation in definition which can be resolved by adopting out weight policy.Tamsier (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your efforts, but I don't think your additions have made the term "Caribbean Basin" as such any more worthy of a stand-alone article separate from Caribbean and Caribbean Sea.
    • You've not changed the definition in the opening line either, so let's do a close-reading comparison:
    "Caribbean Basin" according to Caribbean Basin: the Caribbean Sea and any territories in or touching the Caribbean Sea.
    "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean: a subregion of the Americas that includes the Caribbean Sea and its islands, some of which are surrounded by the Caribbean Sea and some of which border both the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean; the nearby coastal areas on the mainland are sometimes also included in the region.
    "Caribbean" acccording to Caribbean Sea: The entire Caribbean Sea area, the West Indies' numerous islands, and adjacent coasts are collectively known as the Caribbean.
    I still don't see a difference.
    • The "Geographic area" section you added is wholly WP:UNSOURCED.
    • The sentence about the Caribbean Basin Initiative indicates that the 1983 U.S. govt law excluded Cuba and Nicaragua from the definition, so the 1983 U.S. govt law cannot be used to support the definition or the "Caribbean Basin region" altname. It is also at odds with your WP:UNSOURCED "Geographical area" section, which explicitly includes Cuba.
    • The Mount/Randall source is invoked to say the Caribbean became "an American lake". But if "the Caribbean" is something else than "the Caribbean Basin", this whole sentence is irrelevant and out of place in this article, or very sloppily added.
    • The Pastor source is similarly invoked to say the USA never saw itself as a Caribbean nation, and ...all the nations in and around the Caribbean Sea seemed to have..., which is irrelevant as well if those words mean something else than "Caribbean Basin". If they do mean the same, then you have just proven our case that "Caribbean Basin" does not merit a stand-alone article, but is just a synonym of "Caribbean", namely: the Caribbean Sea, its islands and the continental coasts of the Caribbean Sea.
    I rest my case. NLeeuw (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly not a synonym - it's a specific geostrategic definition. I've added additional sources to the article and cleaned up the lede to note that El Salvador is generally included, which completely negates your argument, and I have not yet included the footnote from this article which clearly defines why this term is of practical importance. SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a specific geostrategic definition for a particular source. Quote from page v, note 1 of the Rand paper you linked: "Throughout this study the term 'Caribbean Basin' will be defined as the geographic area of the Caribbean Sea, including all the rim islands, all littoral states (from Mexico to Venezuela), and three countries not geographically contiguous to the Caribbean: El Salvador in Central America, and Guyana and Suriname on the Atlantic (see map facing p.1). Thus used, 'Caribbean Basin' denotes a specific geostrategic region that has special importance for the United States. This differs from the reference used in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, which has an economic focus on the smaller, less-developed countries of the region, thereby excluding Mexico, Colombia, and Venezuela." That source is highlighting the fact that there is no single definition of "Caribbean Basin" and choosing one for its own research purposes. This gets to the point that @Nederlandse Leeuw and @Reywas92 and I have been making: this is a widely used term that means different things in different contexts but that generally aligns with the regional definition of "Caribbean." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Dclemens1971. I think that attempts to find more sources on "Caribbean Basin", although certainly done in good faith, have so far amounted to little more than WP:REFBOMB of the "lacking significant coverage" i.e. brief namechecking type (no. #1), "verify random facts" type (no. #2), and "name-drop" type (no. #4). There is no good case for a stand-alone article (nor for outright deletion, but I have given up that proposal already), but there is a good case for a disambiguation page now. NLeeuw (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, these arguments are completely ridiculous - something is notable if it's been covered significantly by multiple sources, and many, many different sources use the definition to discuss an otherwise arbitrary geography. There's absolutely a good case for a stand-alone article - the article covers a term used to define a specific region, used in scholarly articles, that does not overlap any other term, and the books and articles that have been written on this area absolutely demonstrate that. That is what notability is - there's no WP:NOT. You just don't like it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I always love a good article on a term or concept that hasn't been properly covered elsewhere. I write such articles all the time (or at least, I try to). I'm open to "Caribbean Basin" meriting a stand-alone article, but I'm afraid I do not see it happening based on the arguments and sources provided on the one hand, and our policies and guidelines on the other. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy and guideline which excludes this, and it passes GNG as a regional geographic definition, including in sources not yet cited such as the New Third World, which contains a chapter on Caribbean Basin countries, again noting the inclusion of countries such as El Salvador. The arguments for deletion so far assume it's a generic term, which it is clearly not, and dismiss the sourcing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no policy and guideline which excludes this Well, I started this AfD by invoking WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNSOURCED, and later WP:REFBOMB. Subsequently, others have invoked WP:POVFORK, WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Our arguments are based on solid policies and guidelines.
    (For the sake of completeness, you and Tamsier are the only ones arguing for a keep, invoking WP:BEFORE, WP:GNG, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. Of course, the quantity of policies and guidelines invoked does not necessarily say anything about their quality and relevance for this AfD.) NLeeuw (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OR doesn't apply since this isn't original research, and WP:SYNTH doesn't apply since we are stating what the sources say after a bit of cleanup. There are only 11 sources in the article at the moment. WP:POVFORK doesn't apply because Caribbean Basin and the Caribbean are two separate concepts. There's no good reason to delete this - it's a now decently sourced specific geographic concept. SportingFlyer T·C 23:26, 9 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! 05:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:29, 11 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 speedy keep‎. This needs to go to WP:MfD not AfD. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Evolutionary Tinkering

Draft:Evolutionary Tinkering (edit | [[Talk:Draft:Evolutionary Tinkering|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's another article with the same title and same content. So requesting to delete this page. Evolutionary_tinkering iVickyChoudhary (talk) 07:27, 11 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 11:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Little League World Series announcers

List of Little League World Series announcers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, this list is entirely unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:25, 11 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 11:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big 12 Championship Game broadcasters

List of Big 12 Championship Game broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; nearly all of these are about the game or are broadcasting schedules with one leading back to its homepage. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:20, 11 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 11:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ReliaQuest Bowl broadcasters

List of ReliaQuest Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources that is not a dead link per WP:RS; one is a WP:PRIMARY of one of the teams, three of those are about the Bowl games in general, one is about the BCS National Championship. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:00, 11 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 11:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Texas Bowl broadcasters

List of Texas Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS, all but one is a press release, one of which is a 404. That source that is not a press release is a dead link. All the ESPN press releases is about the Bowl games, not just this. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 11 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 11:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cake Mania (series)

Cake Mania (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first game is absolutely notable, but I can't find notability for the series. The page has been without valid sources since 2010. It's best off mentioned on the page of the first game, i.e. in a "Legacy" section. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I agree, the first game is definitely notable. The other games, not so much. The second game has some articles from Pocket Gamer [87] [88] [89] [90] and a preview from IGN [91] and this one [92] (technically a reliable source according to WP:VG/S). The sources for every game just go downhill from here because all I found for the third game was [93]. The idea to put it under a 'Legacy' section in the article for the first game is great. Props to nom. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I went ahead and added a legacy section for the first game per comments above. I did find 3 different RS reviews for Cake Mania 2, so if you really wanted to, you could maybe make a standalone article for it, but I'll leave that to some other editor. One annoying thing was the games have been released on a bunch of different platforms at different times, and are all delisted from stores now, so I was struggling to find accurate release dates for all of them. In the end I just listed the release years and avoided going into specifics. CurlyWi (talk) 20:14, 14 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracefs

Tracefs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. Only significant coverage (ie. not press release republication or forum post etc.) is a paper by the authors of the software. https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast-04/tracefs-file-system-trace-them-all Jonathan Deamer (talk) 05:30, 4 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! 05:45, 11 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 11:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standard telegraph level

Standard telegraph level (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft delete - I've had time not to research this after deprodding it and have not found sufficient sourcing to establish notability or even provide additional context to what is being presented here. There are no important incoming links so deleting without prejudice is unlikely to create any issues for readers or editors. I am unable to identify any WP:ATDs. ~Kvng (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 11 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 2023–24 A-League Women. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 A-League Women finals series

2024 A-League Women finals series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 11 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 2019#October–December. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bahad (film)

Bahad (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; 8 of the 10 sources in the article are literally unreliable (Facebook, YouTube, etc.), and no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure if this is reliable either; this may be notable but a passing mention isn't going to establish notability of the film. I couldn't find any other sources that try to establish notability for this film, either. Additionally, I wouldn't oppose a redirect to List of Philippine films of 2019#October–December. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:40, 11 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 programs broadcast by DD National#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurat (TV series)

AfDs for this article:
Aurat (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The articles doesn't cite WP:RS and doesn't meet WP: Notability, hence should be deleted Sameeerrr (talk) 20:28, 11 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 Santoshi Maa (TV series). Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santoshi Maa – Sunayein Vrat Kathayein

AfDs for this article:
Santoshi Maa – Sunayein Vrat Kathayein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks WP:SIGCOV and WP: Notability and clearly doesn't meet the criteria of WP:GNG therefore should be deleted}} Sameeerrr (talk) 20:40, 11 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_May_11&oldid=1224519391"