Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 14: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voting house}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas most wanted playing cards}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamas most wanted playing cards}}

Revision as of 15:32, 14 February 2024

< February 13 February 15 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voting house

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

Fails the general and building-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Rowan County Voting House – Morehead KY". The Living New Deal.
  • "Knapp Avenue voting house to be sold". The Daily Independent. June 15, 2015.
  • "Brushy Voting House #6". Clio.
and those are the type I added to the list of examples based on WP articles with this topic-name.
Contrast that Rechtman's topic, which is instead (despite being described as a general situation) is in Virginia (per article refs, such as [2]). As User:UtherSRG notes on Rechtman's talkpage and despite VRA/racial-voting topics being important, WP by policy is a follower based on RS not a leader to RGW. I would propose adding a DAB token to the article title (Voting house (WPA project) or Voting house (Kentucky)?) to clarify the topic and prevent drift. DMacks (talk) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upgading my !vote for mostly TNT'ing the generic stuff and instead having an article on the WPA meaning. I just found that the set of Rowan County voting houses built by WPA is itself NRHP-listed.
Doesn't matter to me if we want to say "delete the current article without prejudice for writing a new article on a slightly different specific topic with the same name" vs "rewrite the current to focus on that specific topic". DMacks (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with the polling place article Fine,Delete unless a merge target is agreed upon. The basic fact is this article is about a type of polling place, not about the buildings themselves. One has to go and read newspapers to get any info about this type of polling place. Doing so, reveals they were not all built by the WPA, so please don't add WPA to the title. Many of them were built in the 19th century and those actual buildings may be notable. Also, I could not link this polling concept to any black history relevant thing, and even the articles themselves don't mention it or have any sources about it. In fact the only thing I did see was that white people voted in them. So I think that maybe some original research is occurring around that, The timelines don't seem to add up either. Furthermore, These places were built in the rural areas of many states, due to a lack of voting infrastructure. So please Don't add Kentucky to the title. Basically, these are polling places and your not going to have an article about a type of polling place that isn't going to significantly overlap with the article on polling places. So just merge it.James.folsom (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • @James.folsom: does the WPA concept of "voting house" seem notable enough for an article? There seem to be three (at least) meaning of the term (VRA, WPA, general building), of which 'WPA' is the one for which some RS have been found despite our article not currently being focused on that variant. So is no meaning viable for an article, or only the article we have not about a viable meaning? DMacks (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @DMacks:Apologies, I'm having difficulty with what your asking. So I'm, going to share my thoughts about that article and maybe we will figure it out. I don't know what you mean by "the WPA concept of voting houses". What I know is that the WPA was basically a welfare program that provided money to hire unemployed people to work on public works projects like building voting houses. The WPA didn't have concepts of things, I don't think. They just built stuff that needed building. Administrative officials at the local level dictated the projects. The article that we are discussing isn't even about the voting houses, they are trivially mentioned. The actual subject of the article is about the political history behind their construction as a way to understand the evolution of the new deal built environment (whatever that means). So yes, reliable and primary source, but no on significant coverage of the voting houses. I also haven't seen any secondary sources that would be needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Maybe you can clarify your question if that wasn't what you were asking.James.folsom (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I would strongly oppose a merge. The polling place article is about polling places in general and is UK-centric at this time. This article is about a building built specifically to be a polling place as part of municipal works in a regional part of the United States. The polling place article should provide a large-scale international view of the subject, the level of detail required to describe this novelty would be inappropriate, though we could include a link there in a sentence somewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • This article is not based on those WPA voting houses. That article you posted is just one example of how and where these were built.James.folsom (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          The current article is indeed about...I'm not quite sure what. Refs have now been posted here that are about something in particular (the "WPA" meaning). The article isn't specifically about that. My question was whether you think the WPA meaning, for which we now have refs, is sufficient for an article? Are you !voting against the current article itself, or is there not even a viable topic if we WP:TNT and write anew on that ref'ed meaning? DMacks (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I think that the voting houses should be mentioned somewhere in and article about places that people vote. But, if there is no redirect target then this article should be deleted because it isn't notable enough to have an article about it. I Think the WPA article has nothing to do with this because it is not significant coverage of voting houses. James.folsom (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The # 4 Hogtown Voting House meets criterion A and is a significant physical representation of the New Deal. It was constructed by the WPA and used exclusively as a voting house during the period of significance. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House has retained a majority of the original materials and is recognizable in function as a voting house. The # 4 Hogtown Voting House is located in its original setting and location, andhas retained its integrity of association as a building constructed by one of the New dealera agencies."
(the other statemesnts just change the name of the place)
To me that suggests that the concept of being a voting house is part of the reason for listing and so would count as significant, or at least that being buit by the WPA and used as a voting house is. Shaws username . talk . 19:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been going through the papers from newspapers.com (through the wiki library) and there are a lot of hits, some of it is debates about if the city/county should have some, and who should build it [13] announcing it as the location for polls, (e.g. [14] [15] [16]) There's also one from 1939 Wake County, North Carolina proudly announcing theirs on the front page and wondering if they might have the only one in the country [17]. A lot of it is fairly WP:ROTM (elections here) but it does show the spread and ubiquity of them. If people would like I can link more, otherwise it would get a bit WP:REFBOMB. Shaws username . talk . 22:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are not discussing if a particular voting house is notable, we are discussing whether polling places called "voting houses" are notable or are just a polling place that can be mentioned in article about polling places.James.folsom (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I expanded and added some color based on assorted sources. I believe this is a notable vernacular American building type, but I'll leave it to the community to determine. jengod (talk) 01:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I've read through all of the comments here and while it's been a very interesting discussion, I don't see a consensus here yet. So, I'll try one final relist rather than closing as No consensus in case editors who commented early have a change of opinion. Just a note, this is not a discussion on the concept of "voting house", this conversation is specifically focused on this particular article and whether or not it should be deleted, merged, kept, redirected or renamed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 15:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel

List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel (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)

List is hyper-specific. There isn't any RS coverage of "multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel", or any other country for that matter. This kind of list would serve better as a category. – Howard🌽33 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I have now found out that there is indeed mainstream coverage of R&D centres in Israel.[1][2] – Howard🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination, if that wasn't clear. – Howard🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now also found out that Forbes contributors are not RS. So I withdraw that one as a source for my claim.
However, I have found a passing mention by an additional RS here.[3] – Howard🌽33 15:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mizroch, Amir. "530 multinationals from 35 countries innovating in Israel". Forbes. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  2. ^ "Multinationals Open More Than 20 R&D Centers a Year in Israel". Haaretz. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  3. ^ Shamah, David (2013-04-16). "65 years on, Israel is top choice for tech by multinationals". The Times of Israel.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As in there truly isn't one, not "try again in six months". Like all else tied into the events since October 7 and related to the region as a whole, opinions are split. In this case, the bulk of them have policy behind them albeit not necessarily an accurate reading thereof (sourcing does not need to be in English). There is the potential for consensus in the future, but not via another week at AfD. Star Mississippi 02:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas most wanted playing cards

Hamas most wanted playing cards (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 and poorly sourced material. Seems like an excuse to make a list. Selfstudier (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there two different decks? Those don't all seem to be covering the same deck... From that coverage it appears that there is a government deck and that there is a "Christian cowboy" deck. This page appears to only cover the first so coverage of the second (for example that J-Post article) doesn't count towards the notability of the first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted out the clearly irrelevant material about an alternate deck of cards but editor Longhornsg has editwarred it back in. Closer, kindly take note. Selfstudier (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, stop with the aspersions. It's not WP:EDITWARRING. This article is about decks of cards of Hamas leaders. Alternate versions are of course relevant, as are song covers to the original, and other variations to originals. Besides, it's one source of many. Longhornsg (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is about *a deck* not about decks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article currently has information about two distinct decks of cards featuring depictions of Hamas members. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally five references in the article that aren't directly referencing the death of someone; they're the ones that need to be evaluated when deciding WP:SIGCOV, not the 19 others, referencing that someone was killed. The Messenger source is just reporting on what was in the Ynet article, so there's only four actual sources. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The vast majority of the sourcing here is trivial in the extreme, and the few that do cover it more meaningfully are unimpressive with a view to establishing GNG for this topic as a subject of import for a global encyclopedia. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent and scope of extant sources that cover this article's subject would be helpful in bringing this closer to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the sourcing issue has been adequately resolved, and it provides value as a kind of before -after picture of the conflict. FortunateSons (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has been resolved about sourcing? Can WP:SUSTAINED be demonstrated? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing / notability is on point. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a problem with this article's notability. There is another one with a similar name,Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards that has been on Wikipedia for several years. But maybe it is worth moving this article to "Most-wanted Hamas playing cards" to keep to the same format.--Hazooyi (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is nothing, and the weak coverage shows it. Not SIGCOV, not notable. Zanahary (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctant relist. I don't see a consensus here and when it comes down to a decision, I see editors whose AFD experience I respect on both sides of this discussion. A source analysis would be helpful for whomever reviews this next. Right now, there are plenty of opinions but it comes down to whether or not sources establish notability of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't reviewed them in-depth, I am simply asserting that any real discussion about the topic's notability needs to address all of the sources available, and not only the ones in the article. Left guide (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those include 3 already in the article and then 2 more Israeli source, an Arab blog established in 2023, and 2 Arabic sources in Arabic. No sight nor sound of the sort of sourcing we usually see for our articles in this topic area. The whole thing is just Israeli propaganda similar to Most-wanted Iraqi playing cards which at least had a modicum of sourcing but probably should be AfD'd as well. Selfstudier (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, both about this article's non-notability and about the playing cards of Iraqi officers as well. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Angourie, New South Wales. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angourie Point

Angourie Point (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:NPLACE or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Man Alive (band). Consensus that this is a valid WP:ATD; notability for the target article can be discussed at a separate AfD if need be. Complex/Rational 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work in Progress (album)

Work in Progress (album) (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)

Lacking significant coverage. I think this would be fine as a redirect to Man Alive (band). Annwfwn (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Starz#Lionsgate+. ✗plicit 00:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

StarzPlay by Cinepax

StarzPlay by Cinepax (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)

Service is defunct as of 2024 and cited sources are unreliable, i.e. sponsored posts, press releases, etc. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest companies in Pakistan

List of largest companies in Pakistan (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 if we need such a list when we have List of companies of Pakistan. Possibly redirect or delete. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

Merge to List of companies of Pakistan as lacking a clear selection criteria. BrigadierG (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic is significant enough to have a stand-alone article for it. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Should be improved with more sources.Afus199620 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Should be improved with more sources" is true for every article on the project. I'm more interested in knowing what sources do exist that caused your opinion to Keep, Delete or Merge this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Group of Companies Pakistan

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

There is no independent coverage about this group/company. Coverage is related Fake accounts case and we have an article already. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Habib

Barry Habib (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)

Claims to notability:

1. Won a forecasting award several times - Looking into this, I'm struggling to find any secondary coverage that indicates this is something that people in the finance industry actually care about. It's produced by a specialised consultancy Gartner-style, but barring some extra indicator of relevance, I don't see that it has attracted significant media attention. The business/finance industry is full of promotional awards and pay to play nonsense, so my default take on this kind of thing is to discredit them unless there's specific evidence of secondary coverage.

2. Wrote a book - there is just no coverage of the book, and it is self published.

3. Had a reasonably successful career in entertainment, including some production credits and 2 minor named roles. I'm not sure that's enough though for WP:NACTOR. His production credits on Rock of Ages is looking very dubious - for example, here's an independent RS source that mentions most of the important people on the show and doesn't mention Habib - https://www.playbill.com/article/russell-brand-confirmed-for-rock-of-ages-movie-filming-begins-in-may-com-178224. I'm struggling to actually verify him as a "lead producer" on the show.


This is, of course, not withstanding the very very obvious WP:UPE issue which drips from the whole article in spades. BrigadierG (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing these concerns, we’ve made wholesale changes to Mr. Habib’s page to make it more compliant with Wikipedia standards, including more citations and less promotional tone. We’re happy to make further edits to any sections as required to ensure this page is not deleted.
In terms of these three specific comments, we have included multiple reference links to support Mr. Habib’s achievements and past experience in the mortgage and finance industries.
Regarding Mr. Habib’s book, Money in the Streets, it is not self-published. It was published by Savio Republic (an imprint of Post Hill Press) in 2020 as noted on their site (https://posthillpress.com/book/money-in-the-streets-a-playbook-for-finding-and-seizing-the-opportunity-all-around-you) as well as Amazon and other bookseller sites.
Regarding Rock of Ages, we’ve included the link to the Playbill where Mr. Habib is featured as a Producer (https://www.playbill.com/playbillpagegallery/inside-playbill?asset=00000150-ac7c-d16d-a550-ec7ec6af0004#carousel-cell198619) and also a link to this Wall Street Journal video where Dow Jones Newswires reporter interviews Barry Habib regarding his role as a Producer of the show (https://www.wsj.com/video/investing-in-broadway-rock-of-ages/D86CF4A5-7099-4A44-897B-5518DC6F3E3D). Shellymbs (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews can't be used to prove notability. Book sellers don't prove notability. Who is this "we" commenting above, as it now appears to have unpaid promotional editing involved, which is a further concern... You must declare any conflicts of interest please. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Are you being paid to edit this Wikipedia article? WP:UPE BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reported User:Shellymbs along with the large number of other socks/UPE SPIs over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amalloyz and they have all been blocked. BrigadierG (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Arif Kamal Noon

Rana Arif Kamal Noon (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 advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

He is former Elected Chairman Executive of Punjab Bar Council and former Prosecutor General Punjab, If he non-notable then who is notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 05:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Akram Khan

AfDs for this article:
Rana Muhammad Akram Khan (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)

Promotional article about a non-notable advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock[reply]

He is elected representative of lawyers body since very long, some of the sources not traceable on the web, some in urdu language, but He is notable politician-advocate on the face of it as he is covered by international media and held a notable position as chairman executive punjab bar council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.25.233 (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AUTOBIO. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Onuorah

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

Not meeting ANYBIO, GNG or SIGCOV. BoraVoro (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is significant coverage in Opara, Ruth (2018). "We Can Sing It Without Doing It: Gender Contestation Among Nigerian and South African Women in Music" (PDF). American Music Research Center Journal. 27: 77–120. Queen Theresa Onuorah was born in the 1940s, and is a traditional female musician from Umuorji village in Anambra state, South-Eastern Nigerian, West Africa, where she is well known for her self-created Egedege dance. ... As one of the oldest of her siblings, and recognized for her creativity, she became the leader of the group and taught her younger siblings. In 1974, she led her family members who later joined the group to the recording studio where they recorded most of their songs including Ijele Elubego. After the recording, the accompanying video became popular and was much appreciated in Igbo land, being one of the few indigenous music videos in the 1970s. ... Onuorah used her music to revitalize the traditional folk and dance music of the Umuorji and Anambra. She gained a reasonable number of fans due to her performances of Igbo folk and traditional dance in South-Eastern Nigeria.
Other sources include:
For an African musician most active in the 1970s, there is a strong WP:SYSTEMICBIAS against the availability of online sources, so the fact that we have these is a strong indication of notability. Jfire (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Kazyansky

AfDs for this article:
Yakov Kazyansky (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)

Last AfD was a weak keep with low participation in 2008, when standards were lower. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. A google search for his name in Russian gives several hits. At least 3 of these are about his role in organising the first ever performance in the USSR of Jesus Christ Superstar, which would probably be worth adding to the article, if only as a curiosity:
Local/regional coverage: Yarkipedia: КАЗЬЯНСКИЙ Яков Лазаревич (NB: article is signed by author, it's not a wiki); Severni Krai (regional newspaper): Антиреалист Казьянский и его религия, same article scanned from the paper version of the newspaper [33] (NB: author of this piece is presumably the author of the article for the local encyclopedia); Yaroslavl region section of the Union of Artists of Russia (short bio on account of one of his performances): Концерт №2 цикла "Музыкальные среды" (NB: possibly falls under promotional, but I think it sort of helps with notability); Rybinski dnevnik (local news portal): В Ярославле отметили 30-летие российской премьеры рок-оперы «Иисус Христос — суперзвезда»; Yaroslavl edition of Komsomolskaia Pravda: В России рок-оперу «Иисус Христос Суперзвезда» впервые увидели в Рыбинске
National coverage: Article/interview published by LIFE (NB: unrelated to Life (magazine)) (Russian Как "Иисуса Христа — суперзвезду" ставили в Рыбинске в 1989 году
Participation in international-ish events: Prostokvashino festival (North Carolina) [34] (NB: event seems to cater to Russian-speaking diaspora groups in the US)
This list is non-exhaustive but I think it might be enough to establish notability and probably allows for the writing of a decent enough article (it probably needs updating, too - he seems to have recently moved to the US). Ostalgia (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCBT-LD

AfDs for this article:
KCBT-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)

This television station does not contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. This subject did survive a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today. Let'srun (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 diplomatic missions of Tanzania. ✗plicit 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing

Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing (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)

Previous AfD result was redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni. This article is based on 1 primary source so does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania per previous AfD discussion. No sources found. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHF-LD

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. This subject survived a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İbrahim Kavrakoğlu

İbrahim Kavrakoğlu (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 only has two sources which are not secondary or independent and despite being tagged for two years has not yet been resolved Migustakdtrey (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing in the article can be verified, so we can delete per WP:V without even considering notability. But considering notability anyway: nothing in the article rises to a claim of notability through WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; in particular, publishing many things is not notability. We need evidence of impact through e.g. high citation counts or published book reviews and we have none of those. Provost of Boğaziçi University is not head of the university (it has apparently always been headed by a rector) and none of his other academic positions is high enough. He did not win the 1988 Franz Edelman Award for Achievement in Operations Research and the Management Sciences; he was merely one of five members in one of six also-ran teams. If he has headed important Turkish government development work, we need published reliable sources with in-depth content about his role in that work to pass WP:GNG, and we don't have those either. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Connections for International Health

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

Google, as well as all the sources listed on this page only turn up primary sources, non-notable awards/mentions and press releases, same with Scholar. It is known that notability is not inherited, and just because notable organisations are connected to this one, it doesn't mean this organisation is notable. Hence due to a lack of reliable sources, this fails WP:NCORP and the general notability guideline. —Matrix(!) (a good person!)[Citation not needed at all; thank you very much] 11:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Cyclopes

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

No refs on the page for many years. Agree with the hatnote that the notability standards are not met JMWt (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt College Quirino

Roosevelt College Quirino (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 and does not indicate claim of notability. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Outline of education#Educational organizations. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy of schools

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

Unreferenced WP:OR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Manchar

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

Very poor sourcing, almost all of the sources listed are unreliable. Firstly, the creator of this article, Ronnie Macroni, has a history of creating poorly sourced and written articles, inundated with religious aggrandization, copyvio, and Google Book snippets to erroneously bolster the Sikhs' military achievements. He has been warned of such behaviour before. Two of the only reliable sources, Hari Ram Gupta p.9, as well as the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, only marginally discuss this siege with no mention of the result or casualties, rather it focuses on a likely embellished anecdote of Ranjit Singh-[35]. The article almost certainly is using Google snippets of Gulshan Lal Chopra and Gokul Chand Narang's works rather than a thorough perusal of them, the former is certainly a Raj era source as is Narang's given that all his publicly available books were written between 1910-1947. [36]. Duggal isn't a historian, Lepel Henry Griffin is a Raj era source, Manish Kumar's work is self published and Patwant Singh is not a historian. Fails WP:RS and Wikipedia's notability standards. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Modak

Debjani Modak (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 TV actress. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO. Could not find any sources apart from the promo interviews and film-gossip websites. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We might not know the standards and we would request you to keep the page altering any information which you think is not relevant to Wiki norms. We would also like to cooperate with you if you have any questions related to the Content. Kindly, Please refrain from deleting the Page as you all know we have did our ROI and spent lot of time in maintaining the Page. Hope you understand on humanitarian ground. Thanks for understanding. Renu214 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Renu214 Do your colleagues also maintain other pages? If so, could you please tell us which ones? Also, you must declare the connection as per WP:PAID policy. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have not got an opportunity to interact with other wiki authors/users. I am not a pro in this. Learning step by step everyday on editing. Your valuable suggestions are always helpful in learning. Renu214 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a perfect opportunity for you to interact with other wiki authors/users (in fact, you did it just then!). You also said that you would like to cooperate with us, so please kindly do so - by doing these tasks which you have a duty to complete:
Firstly - Have you read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW? Your talk of 'colleagues' implies that you are editing wikipedia on behalf of someone - and you are required to disclose who you are editing Wikipedia for. Please follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID.
Secondly - Please ensure that your colleagues have read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW (and follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID) as well.
Finally - Please confirm when you have completed these tasks.
It is vital that you complete these tasks, regardless of what your employer may say on the matter - as the policies of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have priority over your employer's instructions here on Wikipedia (and failing to follow them could lead to quite a bit of negative press for yourself and your employer). Thanks for understanding. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! To share light, I am not doing this for any one's sake. writing is my passion and i have not created this page to be honest. I am just updating the content based on my research. Since, you said this is the perfect time to get valuable information from you all expertise writes and wiki editors, how can i add my newpaper cuttings beacuse they are from 2013 and at that time online archiving was not found. Please help. Renu214 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, apologies for completely misinterpreting your word choice. Anywho, to answer your question - use Template:Cite news (newspapers) or Template:Cite magazine (magazines/newsletters) for those non-online sources.
I would also suggest quoting the important bits of info from these offline sources in the quote parameter of the citations (like |quote=important words from the article go here), think of it as archiving the important details where everyone can see them.
For example, {{cite news |last=Doe |first=John |title=Thing happens at place! |work=The Placeholder Times |date=1970-12-31 |page=39 |quote=The thing happened at place yesterday}}. Hopefully that helps :) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.
Source eval:
Comments Source
One paragaraph promo database bio 1. "Debjani Modak Biography by nettv4u". nettv4u.com.
Promo about series, annouces subject has joined, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 2. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak has replaced Pavani Reddy in 'Rasaathi' Jan 27 2020". The Times of India. 27 January 2020.
"Exclusive Interview" fails WP:IS 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". NTV News Interview.
Duplicate of #3 above 4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". SumanTV Entertainment news.
Does not mention subject, article is titled differently from ref, may be incorrect link 5. ^ "Debjani's Bengali Movie 'Knock Out' debut 2013". Times of India.
Interview Fails WP:IS 6. ^ "Debjani's ANDHRA JYOTHI TS 21 OCTOBER 2021 newspaper interview". NTNB NEWSPAPERS.
Nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth 7. ^ "Colors Bangla launches 'Aponjon'- a Tale of love and revenge, 26th June 2015". The Times of India. 26 June 2015.
Mill enterntainment news about quiting a project. 8. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 26 April 2023.
Duplicate of #8 above 9. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 23 November 2023.
Film trailer, nothing SIGCOV about the subject. 10. ^ "Knock Out official theatrical Trailer HD 2013". YouTube.
clarification - it appears that sources 8 and 9 were different sources (different URLs, editor probably forgot to edit the `title=`), but source 9 is just a gossip listicle anyway (published by WP:TOI). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All the sources on the page are either outright promotional or are covered in WP:NEWSORGINDIA promotionalness, and I'm struggling to find a properly reliable source about her myself. Granted, she has had top billing roles in a couple of serials, but I'm not sure how notable those serials are, and, ofc, WP:NOTINHERITED, so probably doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as explained in the chart above, nothing is usable as a source. I don't find anything we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be a beginner but there are so many pages out there who does not have proper reference added but still no complaints from wiki so called editors and users. I don't understand this partiality sorry to say but I am little bit biased with the kind of proceedings happening here. As experts, someone will expect the required changes to be made to the page encouraging the fellow authors/writers but its completely out of my knowledge, why would somebody is so particular to delete the page. respectfully, please do what is according to the norms and what you think best and kindly, keep the norms and do it for all the pages and Thank you for your time. 146.146.7.1 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Syntagmatarchis. BusterD (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisyntagmatarchis

Antisyntagmatarchis (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 to be just a translation Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to lieutenant colonel or Hellenic Army. This article has zero sources, and we don't have evidence that the topic is materially distinct from the English translation (so Greek sources discussing it won't be helpful unless they actually address the difference from a lieutenant colonel in English).
JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Lieutenant colonel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More input is clearly necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural Keep as the nomination has been withdrawn and there are no editors arguing for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nera Corsi

Nera Corsi (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 created by a hoax/NOTHERE user who has since been blocked. I've previously AFD'd their pages. This particular page is more complex, as the hoax creator has crafted it deceptively. They have mashed up various sources that mention the subject's name, added historical images, and done everything possible to make it difficult to easily verify the authenticity of the claims. After checking the cited sources, I found that some of them do not support the facts stated in the article. Some sources, such as [37], don't even mention the subject at all. I also checked Wikipedia Library and couldn't find any organized or in-depth source detailing her life.

It appears that a person named Nera Corsi did exist in the 15th century, but they did not lead the life described in this article. In summary, this is a hoax article that combines sources and images mentioning the subject's name to create a veneer of legitimacy but is filled with misinformation and fabricated stories. Even if the subject was notable, this article cannot be relied upon as factual due to its pervasive inaccuracies. As per new findings, I'm withdrawing this nom. But I'd still question the notability of the subject, agreeing with User:3 kids in a trenchcoat's opinions regarding the subject's notability. X (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So I've only done a fairly cursory search, and only in English, but just about everything in the article checks out. This book from 2018 says on page 20 that Nera's tomb is "the only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence", which is probably her main claim to significance. On page 132 the author says that "the function of the Sassetti Chapel was to house the tombs of Francesco Sassetti and his wife Nera Corsi", and a caption on page 133 dates her tomb specifically to 1485. Pages 31 and 32 also briefly talk about her portrayal in Domenico Ghirlandaio's portrait of her, but this isn't really relevant to the article.
Then this book from 2000 and this one from 1981 (only available in snippet view) both briefly describe Nera's tomb and note that its decoration appears to be a pun on her name; they don't say anything about her life, but they at least corroborate the image gallery currently in the article, so it's not a hoax.
This book, which is cited in the article, was the last source I checked, but I'm putting it here because most of what the article says about Nera's life is in here. It shows her in a family tree of the Sassetti family, with dates of birth, death, and marriage for her and her children. It doesn't really seem to say anything else about her, though. So it seems that the first three sentence-paragraphs in the "life" section of the article are sourced from basically a chart. It's not a bad source; it's good for establishing the dates of birth and death and whatnot, but I don't think it's really a significant mention.
I could also find some other (prose, non-chart) information about her life in other sources: this book (first page of chapter 11; I can't see the page number] briefly mentions that she was 15 years old when she married Francesco Sassetti in 1458 (he was apparently 37 years old then, ewww) and that she came from a prominent Florentine family that was "also closely allied with the Medici". This book from 1990, on the other hand, says her family came from Fiesole, so I'm not sure which is more accurate. Finally, this website I see that her son Teodoro apparently died in 1478 and then she gave birth to a second son also named Teodoro a few months later. I'm not sure that this site really constitutes a good source, though.
So the bulk of Nera's current article can be traced back to sources that predate the article's creation. The only parts I could not verify are (A) the claim that her tomb is "the only woman's tomb not only in Florence but in all of Italy from the 15th century", which seems like a massive overstating of what Maria DePrano said (which I quoted above); (B) the immediately following claim that her tomb has become "a historical and cultural landmark", which probably applies more to the Sassetti Chapel as a whole than her tomb specifically; and (C) some of the specifics about her family, like her father being a powerful banker or her being born in Florence. Most of the article's last paragraph I also didn't bother checking, but it's mostly background about the chapel's construction and it can probably also be verified, possibly already in DePrano's book.
So the article is not a hoax, but I'm not sure if it meets notability guidelines. "The only extant independent, fifteenth-century tomb for a married woman in Florence" seems like an overly-narrow qualifier to me, and none of the sources contains much more than a trivial mention of Nera herself. It's mostly related to her tomb, or to the painting of her, or her marriage and family. While I would personally rather see the article kept, I think a merge into the Sassetti Chapel article would probably make the most sense. However, I'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for 15th-century Italian noblewomen, and she may satisfy those. I also haven't checked any Italian-language sources, and those might have a more in-depth biography of her. -- 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This article is most decidedly not a hoax. Talk about a failure of WP:BEFORE. Even a cursory search on Google Scholar or JSTOR would reveal that much. There are dozens of high quality sources. I'll add a few to the article to make my point, but this isn't something I'm really interested in editing. On the other hand nom should consider withdrawing this AfD, as it's extraordinarily misguided. Central and Adams (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the comments given here don't make much sense, from an English-language perspective, but those arguments which are persuasive are for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line

Hermosa–Duhat–Balintawak Transmission Line (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 decided now to nominate this article for deletion, after thinking for some time. The article is essentially a recreation of a similar one that was deleted. Questionable notability, the only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, much of the article is an original research (WP:OR), and several of the sources are discouraged primary sources, most especially those connected to the power transmission firm and the surveys or studies that are considered primary (not secondary). Insufficient reliable sources that are independent of the subject or its owners or research firms, and secondary. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to move the message? Shalomie 👩🏿‍🦱 (she/her/hers) •~Talk~• •Contribs• 15:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I doubt we can get more editors interested in discussing the fate of an article about a transmission line but right now we need more participation. As for the discussion thus far, it's hard for me to make sense of it. Can we return to talk about sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We don't need editors extolling the benefit of secondary sources, which we all already know, we need opinions and arguments from editors on what should happen with THIS article. Without more decisive opinions, this discussion right now could close as Soft Delete or No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz we already have precedent, and that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermosa-Balintawak Transmission Line, targeting the article of essentially the same subject and was closed as delete. Ervin111899 recreated this article, using primary sources and applied WP:original research. I should have nominated this recreated article earlier, but as they say, better late than never. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only notability claim that uses sources that are independent of the subject or its owners is about a complaint regarding the relocation of the line's San Fernando section by a Pampanga-based business group. Other than that, the article mostly contains primary sources (information that came from National Power Corporation (NAPOCOR/NPC), National Transmission Corporation (TransCo), and National Grid Corporation of the Philippines (NGCP) which are companies that were involved on a power line and its associated projects during their operations and maintenance (O&M) period on the line, whether on documents for the construction of a power line and its projects or physically (Danger: High Voltage signs placed on steel poles or lattice towers)). Ervin111899 (talk) 04:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Pettey

Warren Pettey (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)

Autobiography moved twice from draft with out being reviewed, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above remarks about SPAs BrigadierG (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No comments since the last two relists. No point relisting again as the community doesn't seem to care if the article is deleted. Keep and redirect !votes are also not seconded in two weeks. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schulze STV

Schulze STV (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 in its current form contains several unsubstantiated claims, e.g., about Schulze-STV satisfying Droop-Proportionality or monotonicity. Further, the method is not published in any peer-reviewed work or used by anyone else except for Schulze. As such it does not seem to meet the notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jannikp97 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Schulze STV" is also known as "Schulze proportional". Although the paper "The Schulze Method of Voting" (arXiv:1804.02973) hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal because of its sheer length, it is cited in academic papers and frequently mentioned in discussions because of the Condorcet criterion for multi-winner elections this paper purports. Markus Schulze 11:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkusSchulze: am I right in assuming you are the Markus Schulze who invented the method described in the article? While I am honoured to be in the presence of the mathematician who came up with the polynomial-complexity Schulze method (and to a lesser extent, the exponential-complexity Schulze STV...), you should probably review WP:Conflict of interest before you continue editing articles about your work, or participating in discussions about those articles. We value your contribution to Wikipedia, none of which appear to be tainted by bias or self-promotion. However, to maintain neutrality and editorial independence, editors with an apparent conflict of interest must identify themselves as such, and ideally, abstain from editing pages related to themselves or their work. Owen× ☎ 13:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanika Tekriwal

Kanika Tekriwal (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)

CEO of a non-notable charter company with 11 aircraft, no notability except one notability built upon another, and so on. User4edits (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football clubs by average attendance

List of association football clubs by average attendance (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)

Wikipedia:Listcruft? New list that has an unclear criteria and is maintained by individual sources, and not a collective listed source. Would appreciate other opinions as I'm not sure. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Criteria is the same as List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues. Why should there be a collective source? Is this a reason for deletion? Why deleting this and not lists for leagues???--Afus199620 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are all just football stat sites. They do not show WP:SIGCOV of this topic, which is what is required. WP:NOTSTATS applies. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page looks fine to me, I’d say let’s keep it. 2A02:A44A:ABBA:1:64A2:E757:FF10:5E30 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Premier League club nicknames

List of English Premier League club nicknames (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)

Wikipedia:Listcruft? I'm unsure if this qualifies as a new relevant list. If anything it should be expanded to include all professional English clubs. Would appreciate other people's opinions. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All but one person who participated in the discussion opposed deletion. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sarimsakci

Mike Sarimsakci (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 notability guidelines. Article has had a notability tag since 2017 with no substantial edits since. Other than occasional local coverage mentioning him being involved in various low-profile real estate deals, he seems to only be notable for a real estate deal with the Trump Organization in Dallas that didn't go through (WP:1E). Slinkyo (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Red-tailed hawk Tehonk (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BusterD (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal ASE

Verbal ASE (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 and WP:NBIO. Most of the articles sources are not reliable (see Genius and Sportskeeda) and/or closely connected to the subject. Also seems to fall under WP:BLP1E, with the sole event potentially violating the WP:BLP guidelines. Jurta talk/he/they 14:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep, also the Verbal ASE#controversy section needs some cleanup. Jothefiredragon (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC) Redirect to Hazbin_Hotel#Fandom, as it's more concise.Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 04:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. It fails notability, and the only reason it's here is becouse of the recent meme/controversy. Also, I disagree with the notion too redirect him to Hazbin Hotel. He isn't officially associated with the show, and he made videos of dozens of cartoons, so why should he be linked to this specific cartoon. And yeah, yeah, meme, 50k on video, bad taste, and so on. Nobody will remember that in a month. I don't think redirect is needed.Artemis Andromeda (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 14:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs a redirect to everything. If his article gets deleted, I don't see why we need to keep redirect becouse of a meme that's definitely not notable at all. Also, there's a difference between a "forgotten" celebrity, and a meme stoping being revelant after a week. And in this case I'm referring to the fact the meme won't be remembered, not the artist. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: [41] very interesting, but it is a video monologue from the subject. Fails WP:IS. I would like to keep this article, but I can't find sources and can't just vote keep because ILIKEIT.
[42] is very promotional for Hazbin Hotel.  // Timothy :: talk  19:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: According to the article, Verbal ASE has held jobs, performed publicly, collaborated with other artists, been contracted for gigs, and runs a mid-tier YouTube channel. Your average successful artist, in other words. While making it in the art world is admirable, it is not notable. Verbal ASE deserves no article. Dieknon (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see a consensus here. If it was up to me, I'd suggest considering a merge or draftification but that is not an AFD closure decision. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thajuddin

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

The article is about Chera Perumals of Makotai and specially it covers Legend of Cheraman Perumals and it already covered about Thajuddin. But the current article is not give reliable source and some sources NOT directly confirm certain events. Splitting of the Moon is a believe, not historical and scientific event. Did Thajuddin lived during the time of Muhammad or after Mohamed? Legend of Cheraman Perumals already cover the topic and no need to have another non proven person. AntanO 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of Thajuddin's page in Wikipedia is justified as it encapsulates a significant historical and cultural figure. While acknowledging the challenges regarding source reliability, Thajuddin represents a figure of substantial folklore and tradition, contributing to the rich tapestry of cultural narratives. Despite the debate surrounding the historical accuracy of certain events attributed to him, his presence in historical discussions provides insight into the socio-political milieu of his time. Thajuddin's purported existence, whether contemporaneous with or postdating Muhammad, offers a lens through which to explore the interplay of legend and history in the broader narrative of the Cheraman Perumals and their era. Therefore, his inclusion fosters a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural heritage and historical discourse surrounding the Cheraman Perumals of Makotai. DonParlo (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Kings are notable. But, Why this duplicate page (Chera Perumals of Makotai and Legend of Cheraman Perumals)? Already this article was declined. User already mentioned it as folklore and tradition, and it already covered in Legend of Cheraman Perumals. There is no reliable source, and the reliable sources point to Cheraman Perumal, not so called Thajuddin who met Muhammad (from Kerala to Mecca). --AntanO 11:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the concern about potential duplication and the classification of the topic as folklore and tradition, but the existence of a separate page dedicated to Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives. While it may be acknowledged as folklore, documenting such narratives contributes to the broader understanding of regional legends and their cultural significance. Moreover, although sources may vary in reliability, the presence of differing accounts underscores the diversity of perspectives and interpretations within historical discourse. As such, maintaining a distinct page for Thajuddin allows for a nuanced examination of this figure and his alleged encounter, enriching the discourse surrounding Kerala's historical and cultural landscape. The article in Legend of Cheraman Perumals does not cover this Legend in detail. DonParlo (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
//Thajuddin, who purportedly met Muhammad, serves to provide a focused platform for exploring this aspect of Kerala's history and its cultural narratives// Can you give reliable source for such claim? --AntanO 15:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^ O. Loth, Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office (London: Secretary of State of India, 1877), no. 1044.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.
^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 95-98.
^ Y. Friedmann, "Qissat Shakarwati Farmad: A Tradition Concerning the Introduction of Islam to Malabar", Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975), 239-241.
^ H. H. Wilson, Mackenzie Collection. A descriptive catalogue of the Oriental manuscripts and other articles illustrative of the literature, history, statistics and antiquities of the south of India (Calcutta, 1828), II, appendix, p. XCV.
^ Prange, Sebastian R. Monsoon Islam: Trade and Faith on the Medieval Malabar Coast. Cambridge University Press, 2018. 98. DonParlo (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.scribd.com/document/519315791/Qissat-Shakarwati-Farmad-a-Tradition-Con DonParlo (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this objectively this wiki page does not do that much significant to anything. So what's the point of deleting it. I think people should keep this page. Is it gives a deeper insight into the legend. ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To begin with the subject of the page Thajuddin, there is no reference that it was formerly called Tamil King Cheraman Perumal. More so, there are contentious websites and some references that are just scraps as if someone did a Google search to find a word and used it as a testimony for a much larger paragraph. I find it impossible to verify the paragraphs from the references given. RangersRus (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Legend of Cheraman Perumals. The legend of the introduction of Islam to India is certainly notable, but the present article presents this legend as fact. The Legend of Cheraman Perumals article can be expanded with the specific events in the legend (the vision of the split moon and the pilgrimage to Mecca) if Indian historiographic sources are sufficient to verify that this is, in fact, part of the known legend. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge would be good, but need to cleanup per RS. AntanO 19:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sock !votes --Blablubbs (talk) 02:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep: It is a important to keep this page as it expands on the over all legend and story of Thajuddin putting it in other pages such as the Legend of Cheraman Perumals doesn't do it justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by சரோகம (talk • contribs) 22:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Keeping the wiki page on Thajuddin's existence is justified for several reasons. Firstly, Thajuddin is a figure recognized by Islamic scholars, lending credibility to his historical existence. Numerous Arabic texts, including works like the Qissat Shakarwati-Farmad, reference him, along with recorded hadiths attributed to Abu Sa’id al-Khudri. Moreover, the presence of a tomb dedicated to Thajuddin in Oman serves as tangible evidence supporting his existence. Therefore, considering the scholarly acknowledgment, textual references, and physical evidence, maintaining the wiki page on Thajuddin is logical and warranted.
    ManOfJusticekk (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relisting did not establish any clear consensus, but only few sock votes. Relisting again for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is consensus that the sources presented in this discussion are sufficient to establish notability for this article's subject. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Pištek

Ľubomír Pištek (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 into ice hockey yet but currently nominating this article for deletion due to lack of sufficient coverage. The closest things to WP:SIGCOV are Sport Aktuality.sk and Nový čas. Another news source I could find was a divorce with his wife after 15 years; being/having been in a relationship is not a sign of notability. Other websites mostly come from blogs. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which might help copy over English Wikipedia if it wasn't. No news have been released on him over a decade, either. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sources above are all heavily based around interviews, with very little secondary content (and/or are unreliable tabloids or blogs).
JoelleJay (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more sources/content. Newklear007 (talk) 11:16, 13 February 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) 05:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. BusterD (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vallonia, Kansas

Vallonia, Kansas (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)

Yet another post office, probably; there's perhaps a little bit more to this one on the maps and aerials, though searching produced naught but the Vallonias in other states and the genus of snails. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a tough one. User:James.folsom suggested this source. You'll see that some of the names listed at that source, are the same people in Vallonia Cemetery.
Also listed in the cemetery is Maurice Garland Foley. Foley's obituary said "he lived most of his life in the Vallonia and Kanona communities".
  • Comment It definitely was a populated place "https://sites.rootsweb.com/~ksdechp/directories/18841885gazdir.html". The local paper has regular mentions of goings on in the place. It's still known today according to the paper. Though some of that is because there continued to be school with that name. The bulk of the news articles are during the time the place had post office. I'm still researching. I'm almost Certain Uncle G will deposit a bunch of info here soon.James.folsom (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been neglecting Polk's for Kansas, given Gannett and Blackmar. Interestingly, Vallonia isn't in the 1904 Polk's. I don't doubt the rootsweb site, but I tend to be wary of transcriptions. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's not clear to me that Vallonia was a town rather than just a name for the rural area served by that post office (and related functions like the cemetery). The cemetery is located in Olive Township, but the school is listed here as serving Roosevelt Township. Normally I'd say to merge this article about a rural gathering point into the article about the township it served, but it's not obvious to me which of the two it'd go with if it were merged into one. Leaning keep just based on that, but idk really

      Jbt89 (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Jbt89: If you look at this map, and switch the map to "USA topo", you'll see that the border of the two townships, Olive and Roosevelt, passes through the town and cemetary. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a reconstructed map, based upon computer data sets. It's not actually a contemporary original map. There's an original (Rand McNally) map in the belowmentioned Report that puts the Vallonia post office (which the Report states to be a post office) very roughly on the border of Olive and Harlan Townships. Interestingly, Vallonia disappears off the map (on page 111) and from the list of post offices (on page 116) in the next Biennial Report. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have it as a post office in Olive Township per the 1886 Fifth Report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture. Gannett's 1889 Gazetteer does not have this at all, nor does Blackmar's 1912 Cyclopedia, supporting the claim that this was little more than a post office that closed in 1887, just as the sole good source in the article says, and that school. They'd have it if it were a town or a village.

    For future AFD discussions which I know are coming for the Template:Decatur County, Kansas "unincorporated communities" and purported ghost towns, all of the Blackmar-verifiable post offices are in Decatur County, Kansas#Post offices.

    Uncle G (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Here's an example of it being phrased as just a post office https://www.newspapers.com/article/oberlin-herald-post-office-or-town/139274290/. There are many more examples that phrase it as a place. Jbt89 point is valid, as the way these post offices were discussed in the papers makes it's hard to tell if they were in towns or not.James.folsom (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Olive Township, Decatur County, Kansas. Seems like this is the name of a short-lived post office and of a vaguely-defined rural region centered on that post office / cemetery. Olive Township best, though imperfectly, approximates that rural area. This place is not notable on its own. Jbt89 (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merger to township I've learned and shared alot about these post offices and the relationship they have with people. I've synthesized more about understanding how the newspapers deal with this stuff as well. Actual towns and cities in the 19th century are covered more extensively than these "postal communities". Examples are that a town will publish meetings minutes, public notices, town news, there will town clerks and other people mentioned in the papers. In this case as is with many others, they are mentioned in the paper in the form of letters from a self designated person. And maybe you see the occasional "Joe bob lost a valuable horse at Vallonia", They only say this because that post office is the only land mark that is universally understood, and it's where they get their mail. In one instance someone wrote in that the postoffice had changed names, and just like flipping a switch that persons letters were from the new name. This wouldn't happen if it it was a town.James.folsom (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:03, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UKGameshows.com

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

Not inherently notable and doesn't align with notability guidelines at WP:WEBSITE. Only trivial mention in random blog posts and connection to a fake image. No real notability from third parties. ZimZalaBim talk 21:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at those first two noms is a mirror into a time where we considered one source to be acceptable and the nom was packed with game show fans hardly arguing about its notability, but that WP:ITSNEAT. In 2024, the keeps look embarrassing, and this simply has no current-day notability at all. Half the in-article sources are circular references to the site, and we're still sourcing a YAHOO recommendation (that can't even be accessed because Yahoo is hardly in that field any longer and 404ed it long ago) from 2005 for N, which is in "Al Bundy scored four touchdowns in one game" territory. I hate deleting articles for websites run by a couple of people, but our standards have tightened up for good reason. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Nate I also hate deleting any articles from Wikipedia because it means that people's efforts, which are voluntary, are deleted and their time has ultimately been wasted. However, we still have to find a balance and ensure an article meets certain standards and reading through this article it's a very difficult one to call, not least due to a lack of any reference for anything other than recognition.
One possibility here, if the consensus is not to keep it, might be to draftify, thereby giving those who see the topic as being notable enough for inclusion the opportunity to improve it by finding other independent references.Rillington (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria says:

    Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

    • The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations
    Sources
    1. Holmes, Su (2008). Quiz Show. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. pp. 18, 24, 74. ISBN 978-0-7486-2752-3. Retrieved 2024-01-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 18: "The established British website www.UKgameshows.com is a veritable celebration of the quiz and game show, but it still invokes the concept of originality as a criterion of evaluation. Endemol's rather short-lived Shafted (ITV1, 2001), for example, is lambasted by the site for being a 'checklist of features from more original and successful shows' ..."

      The book notes on page 24: "In contrast, the internet site www.UKGameshows.com, which provides information about more than 1,000 game show formats from 1938 to the present day, welcomes these newer strands of programming. It does not have to worry about the economic constraints of scheduling, and it explains that its 'definition of "game show" is wide-ranging, taking in children's television, traditional quizzes and panel games, lifestyle TV, reality TV and talent shows'. Its own criteria, on at explicit level at least, is more related to questions of national context: it excludes 'imported programmes' unless a British version has been produced. Yet it too has more implicit generic criteria for inclusion and exclusion which rest upon evaluative criteria."

      The book notes on page 74: "But as Hills acknowledges, one of the few spaces to offer a more evaluative recognition of quiz show aesthetics is the established British website, www.UKGameshows.com, designed for interested viewers and fans, as well as the quiz and game show industry. In the extensive entries for each show written by the owners of the site (Chris M. Dickson and David J. Bodycombe), we come across such comments as: ..."

    2. Hills, Matt (2005). "Who wants to be a fan of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Scholarly television criticism, 'popular aesthetics' and academic tastes". In Johnson, Catherine; Turnock, Rob (eds.). ITV Cultures: Independent Television Over Fifty Years. Maidenhead: Open University Press. pp. 189–191. ISBN 978-0-335-21730-4. Retrieved 2024-01-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 189: "But, by contrast, ukgameshows.com anthropomorphically converts the show into a personality: ‘it' became 'arrogant', and 'insisted' on being on all the time. ... Although ukgameshows.com and its contributors are evidently aware of commercial forces, and of debates over ‘public service' versus ‘commercial' television, they do not a priori or consistently pursue economic explanations for the (sub)genres and texts they evaluate, instead moving in and out of discursive framings linked to notions of 'the commercial'. For instance, ..."

      The book notes on page 190: "The structure of ukgameshows.com also anticipates and imagines a range of priorities for its users. It promotes the report/manual How To Devise A Game Show, interpellating its users as wanting to produce as well as consume game shows. This indicates a sense, ... Furthermore, ukgameshows.com's first 'featured' link is 'Be on TV', which at the time of writing (28 February 2005) included 'Contestant calls' for a wide range of quiz/game shows. It should be noted that BBC programmes are, if anything, more in evidence here than those of broadcasters primarily and discursively defined as 'commercial'.

      "

      The book notes on pages 190–191: "This difference in symbolic and cultural power is very much recognized by ukgameshows.com. The site's contributors do not seek to challenge the hierarchical value of being a 'media person', but instead desire to cross the ordinary/media boundary in any manner possible, whether this is a fleeting movement within the industry as a contestant, a recurrent series of appearances on game shows, or an interest in devising a game show format."

    3. "Playing the game. TV game show addicts can log on to a lively website that has all the answers and more". The Times. 2006-04-29. Archived from the original on 2022-12-08. Retrieved 2024-01-31.

      The review provides 172 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "As guides to the genre go, ukgameshows.com is deservedly the most popular. It has more than 1,800 articles, many of which can be found in the A-Z guides to Shows and People. There are items on auditioning for shows, their history and an annual poll for “Best Game Show of All Time”. ... Much of the site’s appeal can be credited to its resident scribe, Iain Weaver. As well as a guide to the coming week’s game show itinerary, his “Weaver’s Week” column is compulsory reading for those who have missed out on recent shows."

    4. Dee, Johnny (2003-07-19). "UK Game Shows www.ukgameshows.com". The Guardian. ProQuest 245974738. Archived from the original on 2024-01-31. Retrieved 2024-01-31.

      The review provides 100 words of coverage. The review notes: "A great site for keeping abreast of breaking game show news (essentially what Clare Balding is wearing on Countdown this afternoon) and advice on devising and appearing on TV game shows."

    5. Clarke, Sam (2003-01-25). "Webzone". Glasgow Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-31. Retrieved 2024-01-31.

      The review provides 63 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "UK Game Shows: www.ukgameshows.com/contestants/index.htm. Put yourself in the hot seat with some of tellyland's biggest quizzes and game shows. Choose from National Lottery Jet Set, new shows, Under Construction and Brainteaser, as well as old favourites like Blind Date. The site is independent of any TV companies but carries an up-to-date list of programmes looking for contestant and full contact details."

    6. Wright, Michael (2003-09-14). "Never surrender: Michael Wright finds Japanese endurance, half-baked ideas and graver matters - That's amazing". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2024-01-31. Retrieved 2024-01-31.

      The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. "The exhaustive history of British gameshows, collated at www.ukgameshows.com, requires equal persistence, and will bring a shiver of horrified recognition to anyone who remembers The Golden Shot ("Left a bit, right a bit... fire!")."

    7. "Here's the Way to Set Your Sites on TV Fame". Western Daily Press. 2003-10-18. Factiva FWDP000020031020dzai0006i.

      The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "At UK Game Shows - www.ukgameshows.com- you'll find a whole section devoted to contestant calls for shows from Ready Steady Cook to Fort Boyard, with an A to Z of the most popular programmes and addresses to contact. "

    8. "Finds of the Year 2005". Yahoo!. c. 2005. Archived from the original on 2006-01-11. Retrieved 2024-01-31.

      The text "Game Shows" links to http://www.ukgameshows.com/index.php/Main_Page. The page provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The page notes: "Game Shows: The absolute mother lode of British game show news, views and info. “I’ll have a P please Bob” (hilarity ensues)."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow UKGameshows.com to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was torn whether to close as 'keep' or 'no consensus', or to relist. Cunard's excellent contribution was made 6 days ago, and the subsequent !vote is also to keep based on Cunard. However, prior to Cunard there were a few people (including the nominator) !voting delete or leaning that way. I think another 7 days will see consensus become clearer here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Winkler (surname). Liz Read! Talk! 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Winkler (disambiguation)

AfDs for this article:
Johannes Winkler (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)

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. I don't believe that the politician meets WP:DABMENTION, as they are hardly even mentioned at Junge Generation. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I messed that up. Thank you for fixing my stupid mistake. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. GNG and SIGCOV met with the recent additions. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Richardson

Britt Richardson (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. Coverage exists, but is routine coverage on the subjects gold medal win at a Junior Worlds. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the significant coverage? There is no GNG for this subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aoidh (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Out of the Ordinary

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Has been lacking any sources since 2008 (WP:GNG). I have searched and can’t find any reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per the new references provided by Donaldd23 and Nfitz. Looks like there are references with SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in addition to the notable reviews above, the album was surely the impetus for her Juno nomination shortly after it's release. I really can't fathom this nomination. I'm not sure where User:Dan arndt searched, but it certainly doesn't seem it was the right place for sources from last century. Please withdraw the nomination. Nfitz (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in answer to Nfitz's comments - the reviews of the album in the regional newspapers are not readily accessible or verifable as they require a subscription to access - I accept in good faith that they exist, however it would help the discussion to understand whether they are substantive reviews or press releases. Secondly statements such as "the album was surely the impetus for her Juno nomination" smacks of personal opinion, without any providing corroborating sources or references. Thirdly I have searched the web extensively to locate sources required to establish notability, but if you can direct me and other editors to where these sources exist then this would assist the ongoing discussion. So in answer I am not proposing to withdraw this nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would have helped, User:Dan arndt, if I'd included the reference I was going to add about a Juno nomination! It's very easy to find references in both Proquest and newspapers.com, which are accessible through Wikipedia Library; checking Wikipedia Library is really a must (especially for people from this era); see the instructions at WP:AFD - particularly WP:CONRED in WP:BEFORE about "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". While just searching the web might suffice for something released 5 years ago, it isn't enough for this. Normally if "regional" is tossed around in an AFD discussion it's because the coverage is from the hometown paper - which is certainly true in the dozens of articles that can quickly be found in The Record - which is a major paper. But it seems a bit of a stretch to also apply it to some of the other biggest papers in the country! Ottawa, Winnipeg, Vancouver! These are 1000s of miles apart! Another 1000 miles further east is Halifax - so here's a reference from the Halifax Daily News. The album's release got coast-to-coast coverage; and her Juno nominations mentioning the album made national papers and magazines, such as a lengthy piece in Saturday Night written by Don Gillmor and in the biggest national news agency (Canadian Press) which even uses the album's name as a pun in the article title. A decade later national pieces about Mahood still mention the album, such as in the National Post. Please withdraw this BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While I am seeing sources for "Girl Out of the Ordinary", I would advise a bit of caution on taking them exclusively to refer to the album, as a single of the same name from the same artist charted in Canada and peaked at No. 10. There is some coverage of the album within a broader article The Record (D1, D2) and another in The Ottowa Citizen. But many of the reviews I can find are quite short (The Winnipeg Sun, The Province) with the exception of the one in The Record given above. I do lean towards keeping here in light of the broader sourcing situation and WP:NALBUMS#1, though I can't blame the nom for making this nomination—search engines indeed return very little. Some arguments above were made that the artist was notable and so we should keep this, but notability of music albums is not inherited per se from the notability of the individual who wrote them (see: That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article in NALBUMS), and passing mentions (even if years after the fact) don't contribute towards WP:SIGCOV. Still, the sources presented here and that I can find via newspaper archives are probably enough to get this over the hump. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus among P&G-based views is that NPOL does not apply in this case. In the absence of NPOL, there is clear consensus that NBIO/GNG is not met. Owen× ☎ 23:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Wielgosz

AfDs for this article:
Renata Wielgosz (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)

Last AfD was about 10 months ago. This person lacks significant coverage. She does not even get 1 gnews hit, which is unusual for an ambassador from a major country. None of the keep !votes last time provided any examples of sources. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's almost nothing available in independent secondary RS, and certainly nothing SIGCOV. She does not meet NPOL, which merely presumes notability anyway, so she has to meet GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayongwittayakhompaknam School

Rayongwittayakhompaknam School (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A Google failed to yield sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to establish encyclopedic notability. Additionally, the article is completely unsourced, thus failing WP:V and has been tagged for more than ten years w/o any significant improvement. Article was previous tagged for Prod (2014) but tag was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Thailand. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that searches are complicated here by the language conventions in naming which mean the name of the school on this page is wrong. This should be "Wittayakom Paknam school" located in Rayong, or perhaps with alternate English orthography of "Wittayakhom paknam school". That still doesn't turn up much. "Wittayakom school" gets a few more including a couple of book mentions, but at this stage I am not sure if that is the same school. Noting this information now for the sake of anyone else conducting searches. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So "Wittayakom" is a type of (senior) school it seems. The name of this school is "Paknam school" in Rayong, also rendered "Pak nam" school. Under that name I find a lot more information. E.g. Google: [57]. I'll have to do some reading now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got it the wrong way round; Thai language places modifiers after nouns, so you have to translate terms in reverse of the English order. "Rayongwittayakom Paknam" is the name of the school. It's a daughter school in Paknam of Rayongwittayakom School, hence the name. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I got that far, but Rayong is the place, and isn't wittayakom the type of school? But useful information that is is the daughter school of another with a page. I'll modify to merge on that basis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Witthayakhom (and spelling variants) is just a common suffix that's sometimes combined with the province name to form the name of the province's main government school; it doesn't carry any actual meaning by itself. Each province will usually have one or two government secondary schools recognised as the main school for that province; these schools often (but don't always) have the province name in their names. See below regarding the merge suggestion though. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. That's helpful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I will happily move to redirect if a target can be found. (ETA: Merge to Rayongwittayakom School)(ETA2 - new comment below). I have reviewed all the sources I can turn up. Wat Paknam school is a different school, but I think I searched thoroughly through all English language sources of Wittayakom Paknam school, searching all references to Paknam and Pak nam school. There are book mentions, and a few news paper mentions. Book mentions are directories, the newspaper mentions incidental (e.g. an Elephant race started at the school, but doesn't seem to have had anything to do with the school). In a pollution incident, 140 students at another school were moved to this school temporarily, and in this thesis paper[58], students from the school were studied. Schools are not inherently notable, and this is not enough to pass GNG. One major caveat is that I speak no Thai, and there may be more sources in Thai. If SIGCOV can be demonstrated with Thai sources, it would be a keep, but as things stand we have no evidence of SIGCOV, and certainly not in the article. If there is a page about Rayong schools, it could be redirected there. It could also redirect to Rayong, although that page currently says nothing about education. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating to merge. As above, this is the daughter school of another in Rayong. They would sensibly be treated together, especially given the lack of sources for this daughter school. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think merging would be desirable. "Daughter school" here mostly just means that staff from the original school gave some assistance in the establishment of the school. Sometimes schools are named as daughters of more famous schools just for marketing purposes. In reality they're completely independent schools with unrelated operations. Between deletion and merging to the other school, I'd prefer to delete. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. Rather than chopping and changing, I'll let this sit a couple of days to see if there are any more views or any better sources. Or, indeed, any better redirect targets. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I meant to come back to this sooner, sorry. Having considered Paul 012's insights, I agree that merge may not be the best in this context. There is primary sourcing on the school but not secondary sourcing. As such it does no pass WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Springs, Los Angeles County, California

Indian Springs, Los Angeles County, California (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)

Im told this should here since it was PROD'd and de-PROD'd once already. Been trying to de-stub some LACo locations and this one is confounding me. Possibly location of a ranch/wedding venue/place they shot porn movies https://www.realtor.com/news/unique-homes/cecil-b-demille-ranch-indian-springs-sordid-story/ ? Possibly a campground in 1910 per https://www.newspapers.com/article/los-angeles-herald-indian-springs/139873386/ ? Think there *might be physical springs slightly to the north but can't find them either (because their name is very common or...?) I suspect it was once an Angeles National Forest-area rustic vacation retreat but can't really find evidence. Long story short, don't think this meets geographic notability. (PS There were/are Indian Springs in Chatsworth, Sawtelle, and Montrose but I don't think any of them are this one.) jengod (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

References

  1. ^ page 155

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:ATD. Consensus is clear that the sources do not currently support notability; however, participants expect more coverage to emerge soon. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside (2024 film)

Morningside (2024 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)

Article about an as yet unreleased film, not demonstrated as the subject of nearly enough production coverage to be exempted from the primary notability criteria for films. As always, the main notability criteria for films hinge on the film having been released to the public, and require things like film reviews by professional film critics, noteworthy film awards, and other markers of permanent significance like that — some leeway is given to films still in the pipeline if they have a lot of production coverage, but we don't just immediately accept an article about every film that enters the production pipeline off just one hit of coverage. Films have been known to enter the production pipeline and then never come out the other end as a finished film for various reasons, so a film still in the production process requires a lot more than just one hit of verification that it exists as an unfinished project.
According to the only reliable source cited here, however, the film only just started shooting in December 2023, so we're at best months away from any potential release date — and the only other footnote that was being used here (which I've had to strip) was an alumni interview with a supporting cast member on the self-published website of his own alma mater, which is not a reliable, independent or notability-building source at all.
So no prejudice against recreation later in the year if and when it actually comes out and starts getting more coverage than this, but one media hit is not enough all by itself to make a film that's still in the production process permanently notable this far in advance of release. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft: is fine with me, possibly more coverage coming in the near future. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WeakDelete or Draftify. Looks likely to be notable upon release and has sources confirming that principle photography has begun so the question is whether sources covering the production itself are sufficient to support an article. In my opinion, there isn't quite enough now but there might be more soon. This is the kind of article that WP:NFILM encourages people not to create because they are likely to get deleted and then recreated after release which is more work for everyone. But encouraging the creation of articles a fair percentage of which will end up as non-notable perma-stubs isarguably even worse. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Inigo of Urach

Prince Inigo of Urach (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, the only claim to fame is being a grandchild of a person, who was considered to the position of Lithuanian king, but never actually became one. Marcelus (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Numerous self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them. Royals that never ruled anything also have articles dedicated to them, e.g. Iniga von Thurn und Taxis.--+JMJ+ (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you know a bunch of non-notable modern day nobles have articles about them, and they never ruled anything in their lives. Also, his grandfather was officially elected as the King, whether you like it or not. If anything, this is more worth keeping than the other articles about people of noble/royal blood who are part of deposed dynasties. YT DomDaBomb20 (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wilhelm was elected, but this election was reversed after a few months by the same body. It was also never accepted by Germany, which controlled Lithuania at the time. His grandson never laid claim to the throne, nor did any major political party or group ever do so. Inigo is a completely private person. Marcelus (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use the existence of another article to prove that this article should remain. See WP:WAX for more info. ''Flux55'' (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because other "self-proclaimed pretenders have articles dedicated to them" is not an argument to keep this specific article WP:ALLORNOTHING. And I would also be in favor of deleting Iniga von Thurn und Taxis for what it's worth.
As for his grandfather being elected king or not that doesn't make Inigo notable as notability is not inherited WP:INHERIT. D1551D3N7 (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update - the Iniga von Thurn und Taxis article has been deleted for lack of notability for what it's worth. D1551D3N7 (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any comment on the sources found by StellarHalo?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for the verification of new sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mayors of Lynwood, California. Content already copied to target article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Rodriguez (American politician)

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

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a relatively small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 mayors of Lynwood, California. Content already copied to target article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Teresa Santillan

Maria Teresa Santillan (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)

Unnotable mayor holding unnotable positions in a relatively small city. No sources found to indicate that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mafory Bangoura. There is a consensus below not to retain, and I have chosen the AtD of the two options which formed that consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hadja Maffire Bangura

Hadja Maffire Bangura (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)

Delete: as insufficiently notable. Fails WP:GNG. Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Nirva20 (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or REDIRECT to Mafory Bangoura, if same person. Nirva20 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Inclusion in Historic Dictionary of Guinea (4th ed) seems a good indication of notability. We don't know what the "Bureau politique national" is/was, nor whether the "posts in the ... government" included any ministerial posts which would contribute to notability.

Obviously an African person active in politics who died in 1956 is not going to have much coverage in material available online today, so their inclusion in an established national biographical dictionary has to be taken as significant. But another source or two would be an improvement. PamD 09:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is there's only one source, I've been able to access the source and confirm she's in the source, but the source is closely paraphrased. The President of I believe Liberia sent condolences to Guinea upon her death, but her date of passing doesn't match the date in the source, that source also says she was the Minister for Social Welfare. Maffire is also spelled Mafoury and Bangura is also spelled Bangoura if you're looking for a before search. The Dictionary of African Biographies also has a longer blurb on her but says she was the minister of social affairs starting in 1971, also after the reported date of death. So I'm leaning keep, but it needs a copyvio cleanup. If someone has good access to sources, this article can be clearly marked for improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 10:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just out of curiosity, are we sure that the source doesn't just have an error on the death date? I'm seeing Mafory Bangoura (i.e. Hadja Aissatou Mafory Bangoura), an article on a tailor (seamstress) by trade who was a Guinean independence activist active among the Susu and in Conakry at the same time as the person described by the source. That individual was also active in the PDG, and was Minister for social affairs. The names of this article's subject and that individual above are spelled quite similarly (they may well be alternate transliterations). This could be my ignorance of the article subject more broadly, but how sure are we that these are different people? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost certain this is an alternate transliteration based on how many details match between the sources. Would vote redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:Ok. Thanks. I will notify the article's creator. Nirva20 (talk) 18:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem -- I notified the article's creator of this AFD (which you had already done) and apologized for not notifying them earlier. You're right. I should have done so but forgot in my haste. Nirva20 (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John LeCompt

John LeCompt (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)

Nominating for deletion on the basis of WP:DEL-REASON#8. I researched the topic of the article, after doing comprehensive research on the band Evanescence for which the subject was hired as a tour musician in 2003 and exited in 2007, and found that:

  • It does not meet WP:GNG, as it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The media coverage I found that mentioned the subject was largely routine, alongside some press releases (WP:SBST and WP:NOTPROMO). I did not find significant converge that addresses the subject directly and in detail, and would provide sufficient content for a bio article that consists of more than "joined and left x,y,z band", "played/has a credit on x,y,z record", which is routine musician info that is mentioned in band or album articles (WP:WITHIN). Notability is not inherited from being a member of or associated with bands.
  • Does not meet WP:NRV: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interested, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity".
  • Does not meet WP:SUSTAINED: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. ... If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual."
  • Does not meet the WP:MUSICBIO criteria, including "Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability." Lapadite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lapadite (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6, is a member of at least two notable bands and a touring member of another. See also WP:NSMT, an essay I wrote explaining why we have the criteria as we do. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There isn't "significant independent coverage" that supports that the subject is a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". WP:MUSICBIO also states: "regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials. ... notability is not determined by what the article says, it is determined by how well the article does or does not support the things it says by referencing them to independent verification in reliable sources." Nearly all the content on this article, which was added without sources by mostly one person in the 2000s according to the page history, can be deleted because there isn't independent, reliable sources to support it. And there are bands linked in the article that are likely not notable either. The little that is in reliable sources pertaining to this subject can be and is mentioned in a band article or album article, which mostly boils down to: "x joined in y year, exited in z year", "x has credit on y record". There are other non-notable individuals associated with bands that are mentioned in the relevant band or album articles.
    Notability is not inherited: Any given band being notable does not automatically make anyone and everyone associated with it a notable individual. Any person getting "brief bursts of news coverage", especially in relation to routine band news - such as a band releasing something, touring, the exit of a member - does not automatically make them a notable individual. The other guidelines I linked also note this, such as, "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity" in the main notability guideline. Lapadite (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 04:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Jclemens. The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources, the MUSICBIO case is inarguable, and redirection per WP:NOPAGE is undesirable as there is no clear target. Mach61 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't misrepresent the sourcing in deletion discussions. "The article, as is, is supported by indipendent sources" - it is not, and that's plainly evident by looking at the references. The few refs are about routine band news and an old Yamaha site with standard label/PR-fed content. Nothing that remotely supports individual notability based on WP's guidelines. From my research, there aren't multiple independent sources focused on this subject, not even from the early 2000s when he played on tour during the band Evanescence's major commercial success. There are also several bands linked in this article that are not notable, and their articles are templated as such. Lapadite (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Jenisch

Jan Jenisch (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Refs are profiles and passing mentions. scope_creepTalk 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a no WP:SECONDARY newspapers sources here. It is all either him or the companies he's working for. You will need evidence he is notable per WP:THREE. The article is just WP:PROMO with no illusion to being notable. scope_creepTalk 17:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance. Working to resolve issue!--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article and added relevant sources. I hope it works. Lusa131313 (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA and a WP:UPE. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the first two block, 19 in total.
  • Ref 1 [72] Profile, likely written by himself. Not independent as profile are generally written by the person themselves.
  • Ref 2 [73] Routine annoucement that arrived to lecture. Not independent.
  • Ref 3 [74] Passing mention
  • Ref 4 [75] Routine annoucement. Press-release. Not independent.
  • Ref 5 [76] Routine annoucement. Not independent.
  • Ref 6 [77] Passing mention of new job. Routine annoucement. Not independent.
  • Ref 7 [78] Same ref as above. Routine annoucment of employment. Not independent.
  • Ref 8 [79] "the building materials giant said on Sunday" "The U.S. operations were "simply too successful to be run as a subsidiary," Jenisch said." Not independent.
  • Ref 9 [80] "Jan Jenisch: “I am very pleased that the Board has appointed Miljan" Not independent.
  • Ref 10 [81] "Holcim Ltd., the world’s largest cement maker, said Sunday it plans to separate its fast-growing North American business" Not indepenent.
  • Ref 11 [82] "Our North American business is a real rock star. We doubled the company just in the last four years by strong organic growth, by acquisitions. And we have leading margins, the EBITDA margin is already above 27%," Jenisch told CNBC on Monday" Not independent.

I'm not going to do anymore. It is a waste of time. None of these reference constitute reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. They all come from the company. They prove he is exists and that is it. WP:BLP states "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." It fails that criteria. WP:BIO state three criteria to be notable. He fails every criteria. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree & have moved on myself. Having added as much sourcing as possible, I'm not sure if there is currently anything more out there.--Mr.EugeneKrab$ (talk) 16:00, 7 February 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) 03:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosea Kemp

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

A search for sources yielded 1 small hit in gnews, and only 1 line mentions in google books. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 teams and organizations in DC Comics. Consensus to merge into List of teams and organizations in DC Comics and the redirect pointing to Black Dragon Society. Addition of the section into Black Dragon Society can be further discussed outside AfD if needed, as the consensus is there for only merging after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Dragon Society (comics)

Black Dragon Society (comics) (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 apparent notability, entirely plot and fails WP:GNG. Cited only to individual comic books. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:15, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 23:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that consensus is developing to point this to Black Dragon Society but there is still consideration for pointing to List of DC Comics characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Martin Heidegger#Language. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Language speaks

Language speaks (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)

Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Content only ever developed by one editor in March 2011. Does not explain the meaning of the phrase, which, to my non-specialist (but grad-level) knowledge is not considered especially important among Heidegger scholars. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Comment: If anyone does turn up some good sources on this that establish notability (and, ideally, provide at least some clue to its meaning beyond what anyone might just guess), they might consider whether it would make sense to edit the article with an eye to merging it into the main Heidegger article. At present, that article says almost nothing about his work on language, which is a considerable omission; I'm not sure there's even anywhere that a wikilink would fit to an article devoted to narrowly expounding on this short phrase. Of course, to make up an example, if the phrase only becomes independently significant in being singled out by, say, Derrida, that would be a good justification for preserving a separate article. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Heidegger. A quick search in German returned two scholar articles [88] [89] decscribing Heidegger's tautologies, as well as a generalist article [90].
I am not a Heidegger scholar, nor a professional translator, but this is what de.wiki has to say on the sentence: [Heidegger saw] language as the foundation of being and the natural disposition that makes the human itself human in the first place. It is not the human who speaks, but "language speaks"[152] and it is only through language that a human becomes a speaking being.
While I am not convinced this deserves a page on its own (and if so, it should have the original title in German), it should be included in the main article about the philosopher, especially as his work on language is quite significant. Broc (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - in an effort to be helpful, I have tried to find definitions to satisfy the above objections. This source seems to address this on page 6. This source seems to address it on page 29. This appears to be a whole publication on the topic. What they mean, whether they accurately interpret and translate Heidegger, I can't say. JMWt (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for doing this research! I can't see the second source, but the first one would be worth preserving as a reference on the talk page in the event that we do decide to keep. However, I still think we're a long ways from establishing notability. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have created a short section in the Heidegger article so there is now at least a possible target for a merger. It is still unclear to me, however, that there is enough content in this stub to meaningfully speak of merging—or that the phrase itself is of encyclopedia significance. (Heidegger's philosophy of language in general, needless to say, is another matter entirely.) Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:21, 6 February 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) 03:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a redirect to the section created by @Patrick J. Welsh but it would require at least some expansion; might get around to doing that; even though I am a linguist and respect Heidegger's legacy in this area, this is overall too minor to warrant a separate article. --Ouro (blah blah) 06:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine consensus for redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lugo

Anthony Lugo (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 this college football coach to meet WP:GNG. The strongest source I found was this piece from the Thousand Oaks Acorn, which includes about a half-dozen sentences of independent coverage. I found a couple passing mentions, most notably in the Ventura County Star, on Newspapers.com, but nothing substantial. I would support draftification as an ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat: If someone comes forward indicating a desire to work on this in draftspace, I'm ok with that outcome. Cbl62 (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tetiꞌaroa. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetiaroa Airport

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

Not notable enough for inclusion as a standalone article. The airport definitely existed, but the airport does not pass the notability bar. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to discuss potential merge targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 00:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are 3 different Merge targets suggested, an air carrier, an atoll or a resort. We need to whittle that down to one target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Mohr

AfDs for this article:
Andrea Mohr (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 for notability since 2010. Fails all relevant notability policies: WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was the subject of S15E02 of National Geographic's Banged Up Abroad; profiled in Bild; and her trial was sensational and widely covered (and [91] and [92]) in Australia
Jfire (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Navico. I will add the merged content to the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simrad Yachting

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

No evidence of any significant or independent coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 00:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support for Deletion, Merging or Keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Santa Cruz, Manila#Education. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doña Teodora Alonzo High School

Doña Teodora Alonzo High School (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)

Prod due to WP:NSCHOOL issues was contested hence putting it up for AfD. Alternatively, redirect to Santa_Cruz,_Manila#Education. --Lenticel (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Naumoff

Natalia Naumoff (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, a Macedonian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All that came up were passing mentions (2014, 2015, 2016, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Weis

Lynn Weis (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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Myanmar women's international footballers. RL0919 (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ei Yadanar Phyo

Ei Yadanar Phyo (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 Myanmar women's international footballers. I am unable to find enough coverage on the subject, a Burmese women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found in my searches were passing mentions (2014, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks

AfDs for this article:
List of programs broadcast by TV Azteca networks (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 NLIST, NOTDIRECTORY. Article is a giant list of programs "formerly and currently, and soon to be broadcast". Most of it is either unsourced or wikilinked to other articles that have info on the show but nothing about it being broadcast on TV Azteca. Most entries have no context or information. The few notable original programs are mentioned on whatever particular channel they were created for, nothing to merge.  // Timothy :: talk  05:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadaab–Abhik

Shadaab–Abhik (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 skeptical that this singer-songwriter duo meets the standards outlined by GNG. In my initial search, I couldn't find any coverage that would qualify as GNG-worthy. AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_February_14&oldid=1207339343"