Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 13: Line 13:
__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/5ire}}<!--Relisted-->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Adams (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Adams (2nd nomination)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Shan states}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers of Shan states}}

Revision as of 13:48, 13 April 2024

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of abbreviations used on British Empire World War I medals

Lists of abbreviations used on British Empire World War I medals (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 contains potential copyright violations, it is not adequately sourced, it provides more ambiguity than guidance, lack of provenance Keith H99 (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had some challenges with the nomination, so I may have inadvertently nominated it more than once. That I can tell, it's an article that not been nominated prior to today, and has been generally ignored. The Article is a long list that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, for each and every item. This duplicates content from other sites, or hosts POV on interpretation, and is best consigned to the trash can, as I perceive it. Keith H99 (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The incorrect information in the article prompted me to take a look at the Silver War Badge article. This needed reworking, which has been done. That article could be corrected, I fail to see that as plausible for this article, hence nomination for deletion. Keith H99 (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
< April 12 April 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. After discussion rough consensus developed that the sourcing failed WP:NCORP and associated subguidelines. This is a case in which I found the delete arguments as whole to be more policy compliant. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5ire

5ire (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:NCORP, no significant coverage from independent sources. The coverage is routine coverage of funding (WP:ORGTRIV), reprints of partnership announcements (WP:ORGIND), or "best startup" type awards that don't convey inherent notability. ~ A412 talk! 09:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Let's delve into the article's content before we explore the sources. The focus here is on the company's collaborations. Based on the information, as outlined in the sources, their core mission is to provide blockchain-based services. This focus on partnerships makes sense – the involvement of notable private and public organizations lends significant weight to the company's work. National and international collaborations can elevate the importance of a project and showcasing its potential. To my mind, focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative. For example, titles for this company were used by the media, which in my opinion might make the article out of the encyclopedia mode, such as 'Sustainability-Focused Unicorn', 'India's 'fastest-growing blockchain unicorn', 'Green revolution with 5ire blockchain', or 'HOW 5IRE IS BUILDING A SUSTAINABILITY-FOCUSSED LAYER 1 BLOCKCHAIN ECOSYSTEM' and etc. The centrality of collaborations to the company's mission is why the article focuses heavily on these key partnerships. After its token was listed, this article became the target of repeated attacks. The content was constantly edited, sometimes deleted entirely, and sometimes filled with irrelevant ads to be tagged for issues. Sources that I added recentlly ([2], [3], [4]) + other source in article, discuss a different aspect of the company, focusing on its internal workings (mechanism and performance) rather than its collaborations. The extensive coverage surrounding this company is likely due to its rapid growth. Established in 2021, it became a unicorn company in 2022. However, the sources identified, focus significantly on the company. In my judgment, informed by the articles I've created and edited, this article meets Wikipedia's Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) requirements. YaseroSari (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was hoping this one would just go as an expired PROD because although I don't think it is notable, I don't think it is nothing either. A very young company that has managed to secure significant seed funding, it may well become notable, and it is probably just WP:TOOSOON. Anyway, now there is a keep vote, let's look at these sources. The relevant guideline is WP:NCORP and so sources must meet WP:SIRS (although, actually, all GNG sources should meet that. But that is moot). The thing to note here about these three sources, and all the article sourcing, is that it is reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources (pay attention to note d in the policy). These are news sources telling us about how they have secured $100 million funding, and also telling us about the stock market valuation - which is high, but we have seen that before in tech companies, many of which only became notable when they crashed and burned. Reporting the funding and valuation, no matter how many sources do it, is still news reporting, and WP:PRIMARYNEWS is a useful guideline to consider on that score. To look at this another way: what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? Note that the lead of the article currently only really tells us that they are notable for having secured money and a big paper valuation. I'd be content with a redirect if a suitable target were known. I don't think there is an article to be found here yet, and the sources do not meet SIRS, and so this is not notable for an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I voted to keep it, but I do have some reservations about YaseroSari's idea that I'd like to discuss further. I do not accept this: focusing solely on the company's internal mechanisms might come across as promotional rather than informative, You can focus on the company's core strengths and fundamentals by keeping the tone neutral. Even this move helps to prove the subject's notability. Anyway, I think an article focusing on the company's foundation and services would have been more informative. I also disagree with Sirfurboy, that stated what exactly are 5ire doing that is notable? What can be said about this company in the article? The Partnerships section of this article explains exactly what services this company provides. If this part was written better, it would specify the services of this company more clearly. If this company does not provide a efficient services, why should these organizations, which are considered notable, cooperate with this emerging company? This explanation of mine is not to prove the notability of this company by their partnerships, but to prove that this company provides services that they need. The source of each collaboration states the reason for it and what service they used and aslo more collaborations can be found on Google. It needs to be rewritten to highlight its services and base, not to be deleted.Dejaqo (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The partnership section shows what they are doing, but not what they are doing that is notable. It would be the section to focus on though. Do we have WP:SIRS sources discussing a notable product/output? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Indian company's rapid ascent has caught the eye of both domestic media within a year and even some Arabic sources, likely due to its Dubai headquarters. A quick Google search turns up a wealth of information, including articles. Finding three sources to show WP:GNG, shouldn't be too much trouble·Gedaali (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit frustrating. This argument is WP:MUSTBESOURCES. The relevant guidelines here are WP:NCORP and we are looking for sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AfD is not a vote, and the time to actually find the sources and discuss them is now. I am not adamantly against this page existing. But what sources exist that show this is notable as a company, and not just a startup with a big valuation? If we can't answer that question, we should not be voting. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. My comment was to check if the current sources in the article would be enough, as I noticed from the edit history that some unacceptable sources were removed. This company has been making headlines for three reasons: first, it achieved unicorn status. Second, its token was listed on exchanges. Third, its collaborations have garnered a lot of media attention. About the first, as I red, you believe its WP:TOOSOON. In the second case, you would raised a concern that the sources might be too specific to cryptocurrency. In the third case, you clearly rejected it. I bring again some of the sources that I think meet the criteria. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and... . This article has potential, but I think there might be ways to strengthen it.Gedaali (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, three well-chosen sources usually suffice to establish notability WP:NCORP. But your experience is limited by the fact that you have only ever commented on AfDs today. Moreover, rather than giving 3 well chosen sources, you pasted in 8. Source 3 does not mention 5ire, and 3 of these are all from the Economic Times so count as one. They are also not the fruit of new searches but sources already on the page, so already considered. I can put together a source analysis table, but which of these do you actually think are secondary sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the sources provided, and I think the Economic Times source actually has analysis, but in general, the rest of the provided sources fall short on significant coverage, basically reprinting the funding announcement of "5ire raised money on a 1b+ valuation, here's what they said they're doing with it". ~ A412 talk! 17:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears that sourcing is beginning to be discussed in earnest, this is to give that process more time. A source analysis would helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sourcing. No answer to my query above asking for which of those 8 sources meet CORPDEPTH, so I have analysed them all. As I say, 3 of them are from the Economic Times and count as one. That is moot too because only one of the Economic Times articles has anything substantive. My analysis lacks some work I did not check the reliability of sources that failed on other criteria. My feeling is they all look reliable, but appearances can be deceptive. I also did not check the independence, which will be affected if we find a press release or evidence of a press release that they are written off. My analysis is my own, and I am happy to discuss any points made. Here is the table:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [5] [6] [7]
 Yes Yes Indian financial paper, part of the Times of India group. There are three links, the second has no coverage and the third is not significant, just reporting, along with others, the high valuation. It is the first of these that goes beyond that. Note that the first is also occasioned by the same issue - the valuation - but it leads the writer to dig out additional history and analysis and is significant and useful. The piece raises queries about the high valuation as no product is yet released. Note that my evaluation is based only on what I can see in preview as the content is paywalled and when I attempted to pay it told me that readers in Europe and California are prevented from making payments for their content. This is an Indian news source but I have no access to the content. However, my evaluation of the depth is based on the claim it is a 10 minute read, suggesting 1000-1500 words. Coupled with what I see, I believe this is significant analysis, but I could, in fact, be wrong. ETA, in light of the analysis below by Highking, I am unable to refute that analysis as I have not read the full text and cannot read it. I would have paid, but the content is geographocally restricted. I cannot therefore verify my view and could well be wrong. I am updating this to unkown. 17 April 16:28 Yes
Tech in Asia [8]
 Yes Probably reliable, I just haven't checked. No "And that brings us to today’s two-part Big Story. 5ire, a blockchain company that few had ever heard of a year ago, rocketed to unicorn status in July. On closer inspection, the deal seems doubtful, given it hasn’t yet launched a product or gotten significant traction." Yes It is occasioned by news but the quoted paragraph, just about all it says on 5ire, is analysis. Extremely brief analysis.
inc 42 [9]
 Is this off the back of a press release? Probably. I haven't verified. No There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. No Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.
Business Standard [10]
 Is this off the back of a press release? Probably. I haven't verified. No There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. No Partial. Inasmuch as it is news reporting, it is a primary source.
Money Control [11]
 Is this off the back of a press release? Probably. I haven't verified. No There is some coverage, but it is all company supplied history and no analysis. Does not meet CORPDEPTH. No Report of becoming unicorn. Primary news reporting
Mint [12]
 Is this off the back of a press release? Unclear. If this is Mintpress news, then this is no. Mintpress news are a deprecated source. But I think they may be different. No There is some information about 5ire but does not meet CORPDEPTH. It is all company supplied history and no analysis. No Report of acquisition of a stake in Network Capital. This is primary news reporting.
My summary: we have one source counting towards notability, but sources must be multiple. We are not there yet. I also note the source that points out lack of any products. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a couple of issues with your analysis. The Tech in Asia article seems quite significant. With over ten paragraphs, and repeated mentions of 5ire (10 times), it appears to offer a detailed exploration of the topic. Why wouldn't you consider it significant? Do you consider it as a "passing mention"? I did not see this website among the unreliable news websites that you doubt its reliability. Also there are two other sources from same website, The convicted fraudster backing 5ire, ‘India’s 105th unicorn’ and 5ire investors angry over delay on promised refunds. CEO blames mystery fund. Regarding the second source of the Economic Times, reference number 4 and 5 are essentially the same and the problem is presented in the link. Anyway, 5ire wins the AIBC 2022 'Social Impact Project of the Year' award, this article looks like it covers the subject quite significantly. In my opinion, this article meets the WP:GNG because of the significant coverage it receives from reliable sources, as evidenced by the WP:SIGCOV. Also, I'm not sure about reliability and independence of Blockchain Unicorn 5ire Unveils a New Approach Towards Sustainability Pratik Gauri, CEO - 5ire, please check it out. Gedaali (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are commenting on an NCORP AfD. So I have repeatedly mentioned WP:CORPDEPTH. This is the relevant test for significant coverage:

Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

You are new to AfD, and very welcome here, but I think you are missing something here. Not surprising. NCORP AfDs have a lot to consider. But what have we got about this company that allows us to write more than a stub that tells us it has a big valuation? What notable thing does it do? The sources considered above indicate a lack of product, so it is not just this AfD asking that question. That last one you just asked me to look at purports to answer the question, but it doesn't. All it tells us is that it is a proof of stake blockchain. Sorry... a sustainable proof of stake blockchain. Whatever that means. I mean... all proof of stake is eminently more sustainable than proof of work. But How is that notable? I suppose it may become notable if people start using it. But it isn't yet. But then, you might say that at least that source is telling us about a product. Except it is telling us about a product in 5ire's words with 5ire's diagrams and 5ire's examples. That piece is clearly not independent. So nope, we can't use that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation! I appreciate the clarification. I think your last explanation was about Outlook, perhaps we discuss that another time, but for now. About 3 sources of Tech in Asia and 2 of The Economic Times (1, 2), based on the definitions in WP:CORPDEPTH and their absence in Examples of trivial coverage consider them as significant coverage. You asked about this company's product. Going back to the above comments posted by others. This company has a track record of providing service. I do not expect physical product/service from this company. Their collaborations are focused on delivering service, not on promoting each other or their own agendas. For example their collaboration with Goa Police was in order to digitize its operations and utilization of paperless document by using blockchain technology (3) and also delivered other services in their other collaborations. This company's product are its services. About its service delivery, I think it has been discussed enough here service delivery.Here is my analysis of several sources: Gedaali (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This company has a track record of providing service. No it doesn't. The example you cite is a Memorandum of Understanding to assist Goa police with something that is, in any case, unrelated to the blockchain. It is an MoU. They haven't done anything yet. This all looks like press release and vapourware. To be honest, at this point I am concerned this looks like an investor scam and we are being made participants in it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing all the comments that have been posted in this discussion so far, evidences and clues, I agree with you. Delete. Gedaali (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Economic Times [13]
 Yes Yes Yes Yes
Economic Times [14]
 Yes Yes Yes This article refers to the award of this company, but it also deals with other issues Yes
Tech in Asia [15]
 Yes Yes Yes I checked this from WP:CORPDEPTH and the entire article consists of more than ten paragraphs focusing on the company Yes
Tech in Asia [16]
 Yes Yes Yes Yes

For now, these 4 cases are enough for analysis. Gedaali (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question (as with many of these crypto articles...) seems to be whether the alleged fraud has generated enough in-depth coverage to merit inclusion. Citing (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to second table I have already explained to you that you should aggregate multiple sources from the same publisher. For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". per WP:MULTSOURCES. So your table simply repeats Economic Times that I felt did meet SIRS, and disagrees with my analysis on Tech in Asia based on a paragraph count rather than the content. The content on the first link to Tech in Asia does not meet CORPDEPTH, but I don't think you can have read that site very well because the 10 paragraphs are nothing much, but there are links in the article to two longer articles, which, along with your link [15], paint a picture that might suggest possible fraud. If there is a notable subject here, it is not the company itself, which doesn't seem to do anything at all. It is about a possible fraud. Citing also notices this in the comment above. Are we WP:TOOSOON for an article about the alleged fraud? Or could we be looking at renaming this article and repurposing based on reliable secondary coverage of alleged fraud? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going to expand on my view that there is no product here, because checking the crypto exchanges, you can actually buy 5irechain tokens [17] as of last December. Hopefully you didn't, as the price is falling... but meh, it's crypto. However that token would suggest there is a blockchain product. Except there isn't. Here is an announcement for what you can buy: [18]. This is an ERC-20 token which uses the Ethereum blockchain. So we still don't have any actual blockchain, and what we have is just another cryptocurrency token. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this has no byline, neither does this which indicates NEWSORGINDIA. You will notice that second one starts with location which is classic press-release style confirming churnalism. For this and this are from a publication that does not appear to have editorial oversight. Not to mention the writer is a freelancer journalist who writes for many different publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Looking at the references which other editors claim to pass GNG/NCORP in their analysis tables above:
    • TechInAsia Article 1 has insufficient in-depth information on the company from a source unaffiliated with the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
    • TechInAsia Article 2 ais commenting on the same story as Article 1, is little more than a gossip column but more importantly, has zero in-depth information about the company, also fails CORPDEPTH
    • Article 3 and Article 4 from TechInAsia also both fail for the same reason, there is insufficient in-depth information about the company.
    • There are a couple of articles in the Economic Times. This one is a puff profile based entirely on information provided by the company and their execs after their funding announcement, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. This one also appears to rely entirely on information originating from the company or people connected with the company or investors. Fails CORPEPTH and ORGIND.
    • This from Inc42 is based entirely on an interview and information provided by the company, fails ORGIND
    • This in the Business Standard is also regurgitating information provided by the company in an announcement, fails ORGIND
    • This from MoneyControl fails for the same reason
    • This in Livemint is just one of many many article on this date regurgitating the company announcement. You can see a list of other articles on Crunchbase following the announcement. Fails ORGIND
None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It is a pity the source assessment table doesn't include a column for WP:CORPDEPTH and one for WP:ORGIND, it would make it easier to show why references fail GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 11:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP : after reading the article and checking with references I’ve removed some of the unreferenced content but company seems to be value adding in blockchain references are reliable NCORP is passed. Having multiple ref yet its not indepth I’m gonna leave it to the admin. HarryD (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having multiple ref yet its not indepth - That is not an NCORP pass. if a reference does not have significant coverage, it does not count towards notability. You can't aggregate lots of passing mentions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay Understood. HarryD (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Comment Indian company with 1 billion valuation which means unicorn since I can’t find any guideline for unicorn startups having an article here, but definitely seems notable to me in general though the article is unnecessarily at start class or more, only facts needs to be added. For me its a KEEP Because High value startup and has quiet a lot media presence other than just paid pieces. AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC) — AnkkAnkur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Yes, I’ve just started, was learning over the months understanding the policies when to add vote etc. its my favourite area now so my vote will not be considered? I’ve voted in other discussions as well :/ AnkkAnkur (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How have you been learning over the months without hands-on experience editing Wikipedia? If you have edited using an IP previously, please disclose the same in your user page and the areas where you have previously edited. Doing so will prevent other editors from assuming you are a single-purpose account. Either way, this conversation should continue on your talk page. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The available sources do not appear to meet any notability guideline currently in use on English Wikipedia, as opposed to colloquial definitions of the word. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These references all fall short of WP:ORGCRIT which is a requirement to meet to establish notability for companies. Every one of these publications allows pay-for-play and based on the bylines some of the clearly fall in that category. Add on WP:NEWSORGINDIA and I cannot find a single in-depth source that could be considered for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crypto fluff. Nearly every keep !voter has relatively few edits. I generally agree with Sirfurboy's source table but I would discount The Economic Times entirely as it is part of The Times of India, which is known to accept coverage for pay. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Adams

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Shan states

List of rulers of Shan states (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 is a collection of 77 unsourced genealogies, with four footnotes. There is probably a notable list for this topic, but in its current state, WP:TNT is needed to make room; if all the unsourced genealogy material was removed, there would a a title and categories. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site.  // Timothy :: talk  13:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looked for and could not find any better sources than the one this article was copy-pasted from,[25] although another person seems to have the same text on their website.[26] Google any two random names and there are no results. These facts lack provenance. The sources from a hundred years ago have not been digitized, so few of the data points can be verified. WP:TNT may leave a crater that isn't replaced for a great long while but there's no clear path toward improving the article. Wizmut (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These lists are also on their main pages. See Kengcheng, Möng Mao, and Mongnai State, for example. No need to keep the same lists on this page.
About sources, I can provide some; however, the current lists need to be rechecked:
- Hsenwi: [27] (Thai)
- Kengcheng: Chronicles of Chiang Khaeng A Tai Lü Principality of the Upper Mekong. Cannot find a full version online.
- Kengtung: is well-sourced.
- Möng Mao: [28] [29] (Thai)
- Hsenwi, Mongyang State, Chiang Hung: [30] (Chinese)
- Möng Mao, Mongkawng, Wanmaw State: [31]
- Mongyawng State: [32] (Thai) transcribed from the original text
- Chiang Hung: [33] (Thai) สี่ขีด (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Susini (baseball)

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gergő Máté

Gergő Máté (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)

Máté played 67 mins of professional football then completely disappeared. I can't even find evidence of any statistical coverage of an amateur career. The best that I could find were Nemzeti Sport and Rangadó, both being trivial mentions and far from WP:SIGCOV. Also per WP:SPORTBASIC, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Szabolcs Horváth

Szabolcs Horváth (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)

Played in 2 matches 15 years ago but has only played in the lower tiers since and does not seem to have any WP:SIGCOV. The best that I could find in Hungarian sources were HEOL, Rangadó and Nemzeti Sport, none of which are even close to being in-depth coverage. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyagold

Priyagold (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 able to find reliable sources with significant coverage of Priyagold apart from the routine coverage, numerical facts and press releases. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/business/report-meet-ballabh-prasad-agarwal-who-quit-family-business-built-rs-3000-crore-firm-priyagold-which-is-challenging-3080038

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation

Mannkal Economic Education Foundation (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)

As far as I can tell lacks WP:SIGCOV. Only passing mentions in most sources which are independent from the subject. TarnishedPathtalk 10:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've had this on my radar since just before the most recent relist... should probably commit to getting it done today so I don't forget it again. Haven't finished my review of the sources yet, but I just wanted to note that these specific articles in The Australian are available in The Wikipedia Library's subscription of ProQuest (under different titles) for anyone interested. "Liberals in denial" is 1905750740 (TWL EZproxy link), "Mining legend" is 2834330126. Another article in The Australian is "No campaign stands by Gary Johns amid controversy" (2841623161), but that is also a name check, we can use it to verify that they a) have a Christmas party and b) people speak at it but that's pretty much it. As another way to access, I think most The Australian articles also let you skip the paywall if you access as a google AMP. Anyway, should hopefully be done with the rest of the sources in my list soon. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While my search is not entirely exhaustive, I believe we can exclude with high confidence that there exists any coverage satisfying WP:ORGDEPTH. I would honestly disagree that even the two Business News articles go anywhere beyond what is solidly WP:ORGTRIV (of Mannkal, rather than the founder Manners) "Queen's Birthday" has approximately two facts about the organisation, and precisely zero analysis; "Manners made for mining" is the same. The other articles in Business News are largely "here is what they said" "here's one of them writing a column for us this week" etc. Surely very interesting, but not something we can write an article about the org from.
    There are two books that have brief mentions, Ferguson's 2012 Gina Rinehart, ISBN 9783031270444, says: Gina has forged links with some of the most aggressive free-market think tanks in Australia and overseas. These have included the Institute of Public Affairs, the Mont Pelerin Society, the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Manners has been appointed to the Board of Overseers for the Atlas Economic Research Foundation which is associated with neoliberal think tanks in 80 countries. and Hagland's 2023 Think Tanks in Australia: Policy Contributions and Influence, ISBN 9783031270444 also mentions Mannkal, twice in footnotes, once in body text quoting their executive director and also in the index and appendices containing list of think tanks. I think Hagland's book is quite interesting, and could be useful in a more general article (on, you know, think tanks in Australia in general), but ultimately, again, there is almost nothing to write about this org itself.
    On the two Spectator articles, the first one, about Senator Price is written by, uh, Ron Manners. The founder and chair. So, not independent. Not that it even really says anything about the org. The other one is a reprint of their presser. As far as I can tell, none of the other score of articles that have a keyword match for Mannkal have anything to say either, most of them are just "this was written by Mannkal scholar/chairman/alumni".
    I do not see how we could possibly write any article based on what is published in independent, reliable secondary sources, and in this case, that mean we most likely shouldn't. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Giák

Tamás Giák (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)

Giák played one professional match but the coverage that I can find lacks the depth to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. There is a BOON article about him, but it's mostly just a long quote from him and the writer does not address Giák in depth. Nemzeti Sport has some coverage but it's just very brief transfer announcements like Egri transfer and leaving for Austria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firside Junior School

Firside Junior 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)

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in article and BEFORE did not support notability. Found routine mill news, database records, etc, nothing establishing notability.

Being the "is the closest junior school in the United Kingdom to an airport" is not a basis for notability.  // Timothy :: talk  11:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close, this is a redirect not an article. It needs to be nominated at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Janata Party, Mrghalaya

Bharatiya Janata Party, Mrghalaya (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's a typing error. Title doesn't make any sense. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 11:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Grosz

Brian Grosz (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 doesn't cite any sources (only linking the subject's MySpace profile and a music project's website) and I was unable to find significant coverage. There's an interview with the Dogs of Winter where Grosz speaks for the band, but interviews don't contribute to notability. Grosz is, of course, mentioned at least a few times on the website of the college he went to (Vassar College), but that's not really anything either. I don't see an alternative to deletion. This is the page creator's only article, and it was previously speedy-deleted. toweli (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krankschaft

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

Unreferenced article since 2012. Being the backing band of someone with a Wikipedia page and having members with Wikipedia pages does not make this band notable as notability is not inherited. A look online for significant coverage doesn't yield much - a post on jericsmith.com is a self-published blog, and I'm unable to find anything else substantial. InDimensional (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RYNA

RYNA (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)

Nothing of notability in the article, a single TV appearance isn't enough for WP:BAND criteria. One member was in another band of notability, however notability is not inherited. A look online brings up no coverage whatsoever. InDimensional (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Carmina

Scarlet Carmina (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)

Only notability is having a song featured on a DVD release, they seem to not pass WP:BAND. Both references in the article are from very local news sources, and an online search brings up no additional coverage. InDimensional (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wallflower (band)

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

Unreferenced article since 2011. Searching for refs is difficult as there is a more successful band called "The Wallflowers", but even after including band members names into the search it seems like they received no coverage. Nothing in the article writeup suggests Wikipedia notability. InDimensional (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the original article author. Happy to have article deleted. Band came to an end in 1998 with little notable activity.

(talk) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Reelers

The Reelers (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)

Unsourced since 2011, some moderate achievements in the lead section but not sure if enough to pass WP:BAND. A search on the web for references brings up nothing on them, even when including band members names into the search. InDimensional (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure)‎ GRuban (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Bentley

Russell Bentley (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 individual is of little notability. Barely covered in any media. He only recently resurfaced due to being missing. Definitely does not deserve his own article. BeŻet (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, He has been a subject of interest many times since the beginning of the conflict in Ukraine in 2014. 2600:1007:B037:10F5:1556:E6F3:9C9A:6781 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CID (Indian TV series)#Cast. ✗plicit 14:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of episodic appearances in CID

List of episodic appearances in CID (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)

Everything mentioned here (and more) is (or can be) covered in CID (Indian TV series)#Cast. Recommend redirect. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me 2 days of time so that I can add a long list of names so that this article is independent enough. Please don't delete this article. 103.87.143.74 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NLIST and add enough applicable references that discuss the list (and not just the list entries). AfDs last for a week at minimum, so you have lots of time. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental Hotel Bali

Intercontinental Hotel Bali (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sarangapany, Veda (2011-05-29). "Warming to the Bali buzz". The Sydney Morning Herald. ProQuest 869129621. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "I decide to celebrate with breakfast; there are three restaurants - Bella Singaraja, Jimbaran Gardens and KO - as well as poolside service. The scrambled eggs are light and fluffy and the coffee is good. I wish I could fit in more. Tomorrow morning, perhaps. Next stop is the Club InterContinental pool. I don't have far to go and there are plenty of lounges or, if you want some privacy, you can stake your claim on a bungalow. I can see Jimbaran Bay from the pool and know I should drag myself off my lounger to check it out."

    2. McCabe, Christine (2009-03-07). "The butler did it - Asian Holidays". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "The Imperial is the flagship of a premium collection of rooms at InterContinental Bali, including five categories of suites designed to replicate the villa experience that has become so popular on this Indonesian holiday island. These suites are located within Club InterContinental, a collection of 110 elegant rooms that operates as a hotel within a hotel supporting its own management, housekeeping and engineering teams. ... The new-look guestroom decor (the hotel was renovated last year) features indigenous timbers and batiks, gorgeous marble bathrooms, flat-screen tellies and all the latest whiz-bangery. The value-added nature of the club is popular with Australian travellers; it's excellent for families, given the free kids' club, beachfront locale and enormous complex of swimming pools. But the resort is just as delightful for couples, who can enjoy the privacy of the Club wing."

    3. Rosenfeld, Kelly (2024-02-29). "Review: InterContinental Bali Resort". TravelAge West. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "Originally opened in 1993, InterContinental Bali was one of the first luxury properties built on the coastline of Jimbaran Bay (in southern Bali), a stunning stretch of clean, white-sand beach that hotel guests have direct access to from the resort grounds. ... A guestroom renovation project took place from 2017 to 2019 and was followed by a second phase that updated public areas, including its multiple pools, restaurants, the lobby and the ballroom, which was transformed into meeting space in 2022. During my stay, the main Nirvana pool was also undergoing a since-completed refresh to be in tip-top shape for the coming high season."

    4. Smiedt, David (2022-11-30). "We stayed at… Intercontinental Bali. Fresh from a million dollar refurb, this grand old dame of the Bali hotel scene has rediscovered her sparkle". Escape. Nationwide News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "The property is immaculate - so much so it feels cleverly art directed - with traditional style fountains, bridges and so many pools and koi ponds that we stopped counting after a bit. As far as facilities and activities go, the Planet Trekkers kids club has a distinct eco focus, there's a Technogym laden fitness centre, tennis courts, yoga, kite making and bike tours of the local markets."

    5. Fordham, James (2018-08-20). "Review: InterContinental Bali, Jimbaran". Executive Traveller. Business Travel Media. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "The resort itself is a large property stretching all the way down to Jimbaran Beach. With six pools, multiple restaurants and expansive immaculately manicured gardens it can take a little while to get your bearings, but friendly staff are always nearby should you need assistance. In the notoriously high turnover hospitality industry, I met several staff that had worked there since the resort opened in 1993 - after 25 years of working there, these staff were still passionate, friendly, knowledgeable and service-driven, which was a pleasant surprise."

    6. "travel42 Hotel Review: InterContinental Resort Bali". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "The InterContinental Resort looks out across Jimbaran Bay to the distant airport. This means that the ride to the property is much shorter than to Nusa Dua or Ubud, making it popular with shorter-stay or late night-arriving guests. Its architecture was designed to honor the sacred axis between the mountain and sea. In a recent makeover, decorators followed the tri hita karana principle that balances the ideals of God, nature, and humanity."

    7. McCabe, Christine (2007-08-11). "Stay and Play - Family Holidays". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "On Bali's Jimbaran Bay, the glamorous InterContinental Bali Resort operates one of the best children's clubs on the island. Dubbed Club J, this extensive facility functions as a resort within a resort replete with large airconditioned clubhouse, outdoor swimming pool, climbing frame, mini basketball compound and a popular internet cave."

    8. Lees, Rachel (2023-06-22). "10 tropical family resorts to blow your mind". Escape. Nationwide News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2024-04-13.

      The review notes: "A luxurious take on a traditional Balinese fishing village, the 430-room InterContinental Bali Resort in Jimbaran has all the mod cons you’d expect of a five-star hotel. But the resort’s activities, a deep-dive into Balinese culture, make it a standout. Families can learn traditional net fishing and kite-making, and when the grown-ups need a break, the Planet Trekkers kids’ club instructs four- to 12-year-olds in Balinese dance, Bahasa language and the art of preparing traditional Balinese offerings. There’s also a professional nanny service for children under four. "

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intercontinental Hotel Bali to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! Noise! 00:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LooLa Adventure Resort

LooLa Adventure Resort (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Dili

Hotel Dili (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable historic hotel in East Timor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pelangi Hotel (Bintan)

Pelangi Hotel (Bintan) (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't one of the resort hotels, and seems to be a lesser notable one inland. Can't find adequate coverage of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club Med Ria Bintan

Club Med Ria Bintan (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sometimes relisting helps come to a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Timor

Hotel Timor (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Seems to be sufficient sourcing, this is particularly good. It's got quite an interesting history with the role it played in a number of conflicts in East Timor, which has been covered in numerous sources. AusLondonder (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sourcing from AusLondonder convinced me that the hotel is notable for the history of East Timor. The hotel is the location of flashpoints in the conflict such as reported in the Guardian 24 years ago. It is also the location where the referendum results are being read. I am quite convinced that the place itself is notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added additional sources, including the www.dn.pt article and the Guardian article, but never came back to !vote. This hotel is a character in the story of East Timor's independence, as supported by reliable sources. Oblivy (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has enough sources and seems notable Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayang Sari Beach Resort

Mayang Sari Beach Resort (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent source provided. Neocorelight (Talk) 03:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Lagoon Resort

Bintan Lagoon Resort (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:CORP. Weak independent significant coverage. The resort in question closed down due to COVID/bankruptcy. Uhooep (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Kim, Jae-kyoung (2016-09-22). "Tropical paradise on Bintan Island". The Korea Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "With beautiful beaches and countless activities, Bintan Lagoon Resort (BLR) is an ideal destination for those wanting to have fun and socialize at a beach resort. In particular, for those seeking a getaway from hectic city life, this resort offers a complete set of experiences, ranging from sea sports and indoor activities to a variety of dining experiences and cultural tours. Set among 300 hectares of beachfront gardens overlooking the South China Sea, the Indonesian-style 470-room resort has the largest and longest operating beach on Bintan Island, part of the Riau Islands province, Indonesia. ... The resort, which was rebranded BLR a year ago,"

    2. Tan, Cheryl (2008-08-26). "The concierge". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Sprawl on the beach and enjoy the sun at the newly renovated Bintan Lagoon Resort. Just 55 minutes away by speedboat from Singapore, the resort overlooks the South China Sea and the archipelago of the Riau islands. ... There are all-terrain vehicles for rent, as well as badminton courts and an amusement arcade."

    3. Ma, Scarlet (2007-07-20). "Matter of course". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "Bintan has become one of Asia's most popular golf destinations. The two 18-hole championship courses at Bintan Lagoon Resort were designed by golf legends Jack Nicklaus and Ian Baker-Finch. The Jack Nicklaus sea-view course makes the most of the natural landscape. The 13th hole which has a stream running through it, is the trickiest. The Ian Baker-Finch woodlands course covers dramatically undulating terrain."

    4. Yusof, Zaihan Mohamed (2020-08-20). "Bintan Lagoon Resort to close down as Bintan tourism struggles amid Covid-19 outbreak". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "After 26 years, the popular getaway Bintan Lagoon Resort is bidding visitors a final goodbye, a victim of the Covid-19 pandemic, which has wreaked havoc on global travel and tourism. Mr Buralimar, head of the Bintan Tourism Office, said declining visitor numbers and tourism receipts were behind the demise of the 450-room, five-star resort. A July 31 report filed with the Bintan Regency Manpower Office showed that 500 employees of the resort have been laid off. The resort is about a 60-minute ferry ride from Singapore, in Lagoi on Bintan Island, which is part of Indonesia's Riau archipelago"

    5. Moss, Justin (2016-04-23). "Stay and play for the hols". The Straits Times. ProQuest 1783693336. Archived from the original on 2024-04-29. Retrieved 2024-04-29.

      The article notes: "A perennial favourite due to its proximity and accessibility is the Bintan Lagoon Resort (BLR), which has 470 rooms, suites and villas. In July 2012 it launched its own ferry terminal which delivers you right to the resort. In addition to two championship 18-hole golf courses, the resort has over 50 land and sea activities (including jet skiing, tennis, archery and all-terrain vehicle rides and its own 1.5km beachfront."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Appears to be an abundance of sources both in the article and available online, particularly in connection with the Movenpick takeover. Meets WP:NCORP. Slight issue with a bit of a promotional tone, but that can be fixed. GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bintan Agro Beach Resort

Bintan Agro Beach Resort (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:CORP. Insufficient independent significant coverage. Uhooep (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate nationalism

Moderate nationalism (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 content of this article seems to be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK that entirely overlaps with information already on the Civic nationalism page. Is there any appetite for deletion on this, or perhaps any other, basis? Yr Enw (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Somalia. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bosaso FC

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

Since, per WP:NTEAM, teams and clubs have to demonstrate WP:GNG for a standalone article, then this fails WP:GNG as there's nothing to establish notability. Pieces from Hoorse Media ([39], [40]) can not be considered independent as they sponsor the club. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me recommend we should not delete this page. Club is an existing local sport club in Somalia. Muscab30 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis (it need not be formal) would be helpful. Also, User:Muscab30, please strike one of your bolded "votes" as I'm not sure which one reflects your current opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are four sources in the article - one from the UN, which isn't great; one from Puntlandes, which is coverage of the league, but also includes a few sentences specifically on the club which can be used to expand the article, and is similar the type of coverage I look for when creating articles on clubs; a DW article which doesn't specifically mention the club; and a cable TV interview on Youtube, which would generally be considered unreliable but is clearly a cable TV network putting up one of their broadcasts. In the AfD, there are two good articles from the newspaper which sponsors the team which don't appear to be promotional in any way; a Warsom article about a friendly Bosaso played in that the president of Puntland attended, which is excellent coverage; a reference in a scholarly article which can be used in the article to describe who owns the team, but is not GNG-qualifying; and a fixture list for the league which features an alternate spelling of the team. Between the sponsoring newspaper, the Puntlandes article, and the Warsom article, it's a pass in my opinion, but if we're going to be strict and say that the sponsoring newspaper doesn't count, it becomes more marginal. As I've already noted, most of the media coverage for Puntland actually happens on Facebook, so if we're going to go letter of the law GNG it's more likely to be redirected, but if we go spirit of GNG and say that we need reliable sources which show that the club has been written about by secondary sources, it's a keep. I'm still strongly advocating for this to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 00:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: most of news in Somalia are in Facebook so it's very limited to find websites written about such areas, so I believe it's unfair to mark this article "deletion" dealing contextual argument will improve diverse approach of dealing such situations. The only thing that you believed in horseedmedia media is the sponsor of the this club and can't be referred to source, first Horseed Media is well-known and respected Media station in Somalia with reliable information in Somalia context, secondly, we used other source to follow your directives and rules mentioned above as editor, contributor and creator of this article I believe it's completely appropriate rules and regulations of Wikipedia and should be accepted. Muscab30 (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Longer note below, it broke the template
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin note, I had closed this as The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Somalia as a viable ATD. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient independence. This isn't as close as it looks with a keep noting the team is neither mainstream nor well covered, which negates the !vote which I still believe to be a correct read. @SportingFlyer: raised some good points at my Talk about the points they'd raised above and I offered to relist in lieu of DRV. Star Mississippi 13:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note about the new close: At a glance, views seem to be all over the place. However, with only two keep !votes, consensus is clearly against keeping this article. That leaves delete or redirect, slightly favoring redirect. When in doubt between those two, it seems prudent to go with the least destructive option. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this music?

AfDs for this article:
Is this music? (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 magazine/website. Unsourced since its inception and there is nothing to find online. Anarchyte (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Cfls (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cfls why do you wish to have the article deleted? Voting without a rationale is unhelpful. Mach61 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion and a lack of deletion rationale from some participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are no reliable sources in the article. I could find nothing that resembled independent reliable sources in a web search, though they could be hidden by the name which is also a fairly common phrase. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On balance, the Delete arguments carry more weight, but they do not rise to the level of a rough consensus to take any action, including redirecting. Improvements in sourcing made to the article during this monthlong AfD bring hope that by the time the page is eligible for renomination, that would not be necessary. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chashni (TV series)

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references [44] [45][46] [47] are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [48] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This [49] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second [50] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference [51] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point. ManaliJain (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, I dont think duration is the parameter for notability because there are many Indian Series which have lasted lesser than the series or similar than the series like Pracchand Ashok (39 episodes), Sherdil Shergill, Lag Ja Gale etc. Secondly, I feel the article has enough reliable sources and has constantly been updated with regards to the problems suggested above by User:CNMall41. There are enough sources with bylines like these[52] [53] [54][55] [56] and also there is no churnalism because every media portal has taken separate interview with the cast or have written unidentical content on the series with establishes verifiability. Thirdly, if we look most of the Indian tv articles are mostly similarly referenced and I have searched Bollywood Hungama articles and every article has the same byline "Bollywood Hungama News Network" thereby certainly ensuring that not all articles are paid articles. I think every region has its own policies of journalism and litter leverage can be given on these aspects. Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment I have to this AfD. As stated previously, these only verify the existence. Verifiability is not notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I couldn’t find reliable evidence of WP:SIGCOV for a notability claim. Contributor892z (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to an article listing the channel's original media. Having reviewed the citatitons identified by Imsaneikigai, none of them include significant coverage of the subject itself, comprising either softball interviews with actors or promotional pre-release coverage. What we need are critics' reviews, or articles that otherwise comment on the substance and significance of the show; this is lacking after three relists. signed, Rosguill talk 15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No objection to a consensus Redirect to StarPlus. Sources show the subject exists, they do not have WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral non-promotional reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found primary sources, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV.  // Timothy :: talk  17:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:HEY, article substantially improved since nomination, with bylined articles published in rather reliable media covering the production, so that deletion is quite unnecessary in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. CBE meets weak sourcing. No indication a 3rd relist would change the split here. Star Mississippi 01:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Butterfield

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of WP:notability under SNG or GNG. Basically a promotional -resume. The lead just says that he is a British brand and communications expert.

The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source.

Some concern that the creator has 28 lifetime edits, all on this article. Article was tagged for UPE concern by somebody else and the tag was quickly removed by an IP. The IP that removed it has 2 lifetime edits...one removing the tag and the other putting a link at another article to this article. North8000 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at it again, I think it's obvious that there's an undeclared COI here and I'm going to tag the article accordingly. 07:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Dozens every year in a country of 67 million is not many! These are highly prestigious honours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that wp:notability does unofficially take real world notability into account a bit, for biographies the core of it is about available of GNG sources from which to build an article. As I noted in the nomination "The references are just a collection of mentions / announcements on him. Nothing anywhere near even one GNG source. " Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. Either a being award a CBE is sufficient or it isn't. Is there any specific guideline on honors such as this and notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - I added the Authority control template at the bottom of the article. For what it's worth, that did kick up VIAF hits in multiple languages that show his woks are in various international libraries. Seems to me that makes him notable.— Maile (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Neutral. I am not British. and not knowledgeable on the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 12:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brazell

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an Australian cricketer player, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found were 1 and 2, both from the same publication. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is clearly no additional support for Deletion but no consensus yet as opinion is divided between Keeping, Drafting or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dialdirect

Dialdirect (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)

Cannot find any sources proving notable, other than advertising. Not to be confused with the UK company "Dial Direct". GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the nominator is now indefinitely blocked for copyright problems.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Amount of failed verifications makes me wonder if aside from the from the company existing, the rest of the article is fictitious. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talakayan Ng Bayan

Talakayan Ng Bayan (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 unreferenced since 2009 and tagged as such since 2010. No good hits on GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Found several false positive as Talakayan ng Bayan means "People's Dialogue" and is used by several entities aside from DWBL. --Lenticel (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. The argument that this meets GNG was refuted without subsequent rebuttal. Daniel (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCKV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Defiant (band)

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

A newly created band consisting of notable members fails to establish independent notability. I tried, but couldn't find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. A Google News search yielded some sources, but they mostly consist of passing mentions or routine coverage. IMO, it fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NBAND and is a possible case of WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS 💬 07:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and United States of America. GSS 💬 07:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:BAND#C6, coverage in the Boston Globe and Phoenix New Times. Mach61 08:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt these sources discuss the band in detail; rather, they likely provide routine coverage. GSS 💬 08:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSS why are you writing this as if you haven't actually read the linked articles Mach61 17:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your assumption; nothing else. Could you explain how the sources you mentioned above satisfy WP:INDEPTH? GSS 💬 17:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSS The New Times piece is over 1000 words long Tangential:INDEPTH links to WP:Notability (events), which is obviously not applicable in this case. Perhaps you caught a case of WP:UPPERCASE? Mach61 18:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ⁤I agree that the article is lengthy, but it seems to lack sufficient independent focus on the band itself. ⁤⁤Throughout this article, the band's name is mentioned only five times, excluding the title and image description, and often in passing. ⁤⁤It's quite normal to receive such attention in the media when the subject is linked to notable people. ⁤⁤However, as of now, since the band was formed, it hasn't achieved anything notable. ⁤⁤They have released a few single and only one album, and that too on a non-notable label. ⁤⁤While the band has garnered some attention because of its notable founding members, this doesn't establish independent notability. Therefore, I would say it's too soon for an independent article until the band becomes independently notable. GSS 💬 04:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GSS Your statement that Throughout this article, the band's name is mentioned only five times, excluding the title and image description, and often in passing} is nonsensical, the term "passing mention" refers to coverage 1-2 sentences long in an article. Obviously, an article about the band is not a passing mention of them.
    Your statement that the band hasn't "achieved" anything notable is just an opinion; I've already shown two sources covering them in detail Mach61 23:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Meets WP:NMUSIC#6 and #12 (featured on Jimmy Kimmel Live). I don't think the Boston Globe article meets SIGCOV because it only really states the band has formed and the members; the rest of it is about Barrett and the Bosstone's. However, the Phoenix New Times does meet SIGCOV with a nice overview of their debut album which in combination with the other criteria, gets it over the hump for me. S0091 (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Ojala

Anton Ojala (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 fair coverage, but it does not have consensus to remain an article with no significant thing happening in years. Fails WP:BLP Villian Factman (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayyanza Malik Ahmad

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

Another case of WP:INVALIDBIO. Child's notability is solely attributed to their parent, and it's highly unlikely for a two-year-old to have achieved notable accomplishments. Ckfasdf (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian

List of Dutch loanwords in Indonesian (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)

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions and to see if anyone knows how to "transwiki".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

List of loanwords in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (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)

Ehrmagerd, werds! As interesting as I find this, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the introduction is clearly not a dictionary. the list defines some words but is mostly serving the functions of a list. should be fine enough as is to keep that too User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is not a dictionary entry. I don't know what gave the nom the idea that articles about linguistics and etymology are somehow not encyclopedic, prompting them to launch their current "Ehrmagerd, werds!" deletion campaign. Owen× ☎ 14:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Does not read like a dictionary entry, it is a list – and a quality one at that. ~ Dictionary (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin

AfDs for this article:
List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin (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)

Ehrmagerd, werds! Wikipedia is not a dictionary. PepperBeast (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think this one could be merged into Nahuatlismo. At least some list would be OK to have there. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep intro is not a dictionary and lists is probably fine? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I’m not comfortable with so much material with no inline citations but I’m assuming most or all of the article content is potentially sourceable and the topic could be expanded. Doesn’t feel like TNT territory to me. Mccapra (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia has many lists like these and I don't see an issue with them, sure maybe it would be preferable that they be transformed into regular articles with more prose, but I don't think deletion is the solution here. The only real issue here is, as Mccapra pointed out, the lack of citations.★Trekker (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. While no commenter supports deletion (which even the nominator does not explicitly ask for), views are split between keep and redirect. This has been relisted more than enough times already. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot cake

Beetroot cake (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 cake that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I thought all of our "cake articles" (and "salad articles") had already passed through AFD but here is another.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I stumbled across two sources today that discuss this cake as a style of chocolate cake, and it made me remember there are multiple terms in English, depending on what variety of Englis -- beetroot vs. beet, for instance -- which complicates things when searching for information. And there may be some history around Red velvet cake. I'm waffling a bit, but right now I'm thinking rather than redirect to beetroot (or to chocolate cake), we can keep. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MontageJS

MontageJS (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)

Currently unreferenced save for an arstechnica piece written by the creators of the framework. Searches on Google result in either Yellowpages-style listings or Githubs. Books return in trivial mentions in author biographies. The fact that the author was SPA on this topic does not help. For these reasons I believe it fails GNG. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 04:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kennedys Law. Daniel (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates and Partners

Gates and Partners (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)

Unclear that notability has been established. Beland (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kennedys Law, also agree, don't think the sourcing for the redirect target meets NCORP either but that isn't the topic at AfD. HighKing++ 12:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D

K21JQ-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Open-access operator#France. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Speed

Kevin Speed (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 on behalf of an IP who wrote the following rationale at WT:AFD:

I think there are 2 issues with this article, but I'm not sure of the procedure to follow so I prefer to post there : {1} It's a new compagny with no effective product or service: testing is expected to begin in 2026, before commercial service in 2028. The use of nearly only the futur tense or verbs with conditionnal or future meaning as ("would", "planned", "is expected"...) shows that. {2} It seems that the subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. International Railway Journal is a media of limited interest (trade magazine for railway industry) and the content seems more promotional than informative. Quechoisir is a French media with a national audience but the mention is anecdotical. La Tribune is a French economic media but the coverage is not significant. CycloneYoris talk! 02:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting but I'm leaning to a Redirect. Not sure what "ontitionnal" means though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Because of that, very little weight was given to keeps based on the assertion that the player will either play more matches or be the subject of additional coverage in the future. Further, the community has been clear that caps do not dictate notability. With both of those in mind, there is a clear consensus that the subject is not notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jensen Monk

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, an English rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification would be an option, but this is a re-creation of an existing draft. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 18:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Garland mayoral special election

2018 Garland mayoral special election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was incorrectly PRODed [68] after being through an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayoral_elections. I WP:REFUNDed it and brought it here. While incorrectly applied, the PROD put it best: "Routine election in suburban city, local coverage of routine results only without evidence of notability." Nickps (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Texas. Nickps (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My fault with the PROD. I missed a small "afd" edit summary in the page history. Usually edit summaries for AFD nominations are a little more prominent. Did you have the article restored and brought it here to AFD simply because I made a mistake in the PROD 3 years ago? Seems a little bureaucracy for its own sake. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nom is correct in their assessment of the article's notability, though there was no need to undelete it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I need to explain my rationale here. Since most of the articles from the original AfD still exist (and the ones that don't are merged somewhere else), to me that looks like there is consensus that this content belongs on WP. The fact that I personally think this shouldn't be the case is irrelevant. Had I phrased this as a purely procedural AfD without endorsing the PROD's reasoning it would have been clearer. Nickps (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input would be helpful given the context nom identifies in their comment of 30 March.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unexciting but notable. Elections are never routine. The two relistings suggest to me that AfD participants are being overwhelmed by the volume of nominations. Perhaps we need to tweak policy – so that a few more small-town mayors and random psychology professors are allowed in – in order to keep AfD at a manageable level. I find using Google Translate to make sense of Indonesian-language articles that are better than their English-language counterparts is increasingly draining. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ow, I would love to see more articles about mayors in small towns/municipalities. The Netherlands had many tiny municipalities (often with less then 500 inhabitants). That those municipalities often survived only a few years is a small detail. The Banner talk 16:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC) No worries. It is true but I am not going to spend time on that.[reply]
  • Delete Nothing really here. Wikipedia is not a database of election results. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per NOTDIR and nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Pppery, and The Herald. Every local election gets local coverage, which is insufficient to show encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 02:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) ToadetteEdit! 18:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shamako Noble

Shamako Noble (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 hip-hop musician and writer, admittedly his album was released a long time ago in internet terms, in 2004, but the most I can do is find proof on Discogs that it existed. There are a couple of online articles written by Noble, and a couple of brief mentions in a university radio article and the Seattle Times. His candidature in California politics is confusing, and only cited to a Green Party application. Overall this is more like a resumé and not suitable for Wikipedia, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. I agree that neither of those are significant coverage, and the article is written like a resume, but that doesn’t justify deletion (it is possible, though, to cut down some of the text). There’s a book covering him here and an interview here.
The book coverage is probably not enough to float an article on its own, though, but there might be another source I haven’t found immidiately. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I just added the book I found to the Hip Hop Congress article. There might not be that much to merge. Changing my stance to Neutral, unless anyone can find more sources (which I'm not sure don't exist). Mrfoogles (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the book above, he's profiled in Banjoko, Adisa (2004). "Political Activist, Shamako Noble". Lyrical Swords: Hip Hop and Politics in the Mix. YinSumi Press. ISBN 9780970177117. The book series Lyrical Swords and its author has been the subject of RS (see for example) He's also got coverage for his work as an activist in Berg, Laurie; Berg, Anna; Robinson, Pamela K.; Wills, Jane. "Economic Migrants: The Banana Supply Chain, and the London Living Wage: Three Cases Civil Society Activism on Poverty". In Kumar, Ashwani (ed.). Global Civil Society Yearbook 2009: Poverty and Activism. SAGE Publications. ISBN 9781446202562. All together, this clearly passes GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just posing the question, if the consensus was to Merge this article, what would the target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the previous article, the majority of it was copy-pasted from his Green Party shadow cabinet biography here. I replaced that with the stuff I could cite. I don't know what's in the Lyrical Swords coverage and I can't find the mention of him in the Economic Migrants coverage, but from the sources I can see so far I think probably his article would be merged into Hip Hop Congress (co-founder) and possibly 2012 Republican National Convention (decent bit of coverage that's interviewing him participating in protests against it). Mrfoogles (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have full access to the books/journals so it's hard to make a firm judgement here, but my impression is that the coverage seems weak. Probably fails a strict reading of WP:NBIO.-KH-1 (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. revised article per the improvements made during this discussion. As for whether this should be subsequently moved or split, that's editorial and doesn't need a relist. Star Mississippi 01:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stars and planetary systems in fiction

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

This is an extreme (almost 400kb) case of fancrufty "list of appearances of foo topic in every imaginable work" (books, comics, games...). The topic may be notable (recent talk discussion suggests User:TompaDompa, who has an established record of getting similar topics to Good Article and beyond, tried to rewrite this but was thwarted - reverted - at some point and possibly gave up), Our execution is abysmally bad and begs for WP:TNT - after tiny prose lead, this is just a WP:IPC-violating list of random examples. I.e. this is another de facto list that fails WP:LISTN, a simple WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of all instances a star or planet appeared in a work of fiction (WP:NOTTVTROPES). If we were to approach it as an article, beyond its lead, it is a major fail of WP:V and WP:OR). No prejudice to this being turned into a prose-based stub or start-class if anyone (TompaDompa?) wants to work on this, otherwise we may have to redirect it or just delete it, I am afraid. Note that this list is still growing with unrerenced ORish content (see diff from late March). Sigh. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it currently is. The current article is rife with a multitude of pretty major issues as described already - poor sourcing, WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and content that blatantly goes against WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If the current content was replaced by the draft shared by TompaDompa above, then I would be happy to keep that version, but this current list should absolutely not be retained as it is. Rorshacma (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As the previous list has been replaced by a sourced prose article, I am striking my previous recommendation to Delete. As shown by the discussions below, there is still some discussion to be had regarding the final organization of the information here, such as should it be merged anywhere or split into more than one topic, but that can be discussed after the AFD closes if needed. As far as the current AFD is concerned, I do not believe there is any cause for a deletion at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, then why not just go with the version by TompaDompa mentioned and linked above? If the nominator said they'd withdraw the nom if that version is used, and !voters agree, I'm not understanding the problem, which seems to have that easy solution. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As TompaDompa said, they attempted to rewrite the article to the version they proposed back in 2021, and after lengthy pushback on the Talk page, it was reverted back to the current version of the article. As they said that they were hesitant on changing it back to their version to avoid looking like they were independently ignoring that previous discussion, I made the statement that I would remove my recommendation to Delete if their version were used instead in order to hopefully show a consensus for them to go ahead with that rewrite. I'd imagine the other commenters and nom have similar thinking. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn Maybe ping those editors and ask? Not everybody follows discussions after commenting. I concur that deleting is strictly inferior to replacing this with something else. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an editor, just a lowly user, but I just wanted to say I love this page and use it all the time to suggest colony names when I'm gaming. I'll be sad to see it go.
Will the historical versions of this page still be available once it's gone. 108.31.3.18 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it does get deleted, try the Wayback Machine as it has numerous backups of the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, and I hope this will be preserved in history. Even better - if someone would care enough to copy this to TVTROPES... maybe you'd like to help? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (or just merge? It wasn't the original scope of the article) to Planets in science fiction to tighten the scope and make it less arbitrary. Merge the "stars" section to Star, adding an "in fiction" section. I assume it must have had one at some point, but probably got spun off to sweep the cruft under the rug. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY (assuming it is kept as the TompaDompa prose version). It really can't be kept the way it was though, per all the arguments made above. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly good article, or at any rate capable of being so, at least in the form I am seeing, which is possibly after some WP:HEY work has been done. Maybe it was bad before. I mean it is original work, yes, so are very many things that we have here. List of statues of Queen Victoria and many scores of thousands of articles like that. If we had to copy a list that someone else made for articles like that, it'd be plagiarism, which'd be worse, and copyvio too really.
    Everything we do, creating articles by choosing and melding material from various sources, deciding what belongs and what doesn't, is original work, for goodness' sake. WP:OR is to be invoked when there's a problem. There's no problem here, it's just incomplete. Sure the article could become really big, maybe too big (but I mean adding material to articles so that they become bigger is not a bad thing), in which case it can be split up or trimmed using some reasonable criteria. Sure, there are articles that don't belong here on account of being too detailed about a subject. But this isn't one.
    Also I dislike terms like "fancrufty", which doesn't put me in a receptive mood as it just bourgeois snobbery and indicates that you are coming the matter with prejudgement, particularly when we are talking about "science fiction in general" rather than "Star Wars" or something. I'd prefer if terms like that are avoided. Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: If you are curious, this is what the article looked like when it was nominated. Which obviously bears very little resemblance to the current version. TompaDompa (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait wait wait wut? Keep and restore. Y'all practically erased the article. Why. Why would you do that. What do you think we are trying to do here??? It was better before. Well, after the article is kept we can talk about that I suppose.
    As I said, original research is only a problem if its a problem. If you're synthesizing a new idea, or implying something in error. The idea here seems to be "Lots of science fiction stories have stars and planets in them", which is not a new idea. It's just true. If you're saying the idea is "Lots of science fiction stories have stars and planets in them, and we're cherry-picking only some of them to make some point", that's not true. The writers are not doing that. It's just that the article is not complete. So what is the problem? Don't WP:SHOUT in ALL CAPS at me about this rule and that rule. We all know there are a lot of rules here, many contradictory, and that the devil can quote scripture. Tell me in plain English why you all want to prevent the reader from getting access to this information. It's not like we're trying to decide if its worth our time to make this article. Somebody already has. It's just a question of whether or not to increase entropy by scattering this information to the wind.
    The "primary-secondary-tertiary" rubric is taken from academia. It is fine for academia (I guess) but for what we are trying to do here, not so much. It's one data point of many to consider, yes. But don't give me four legs good two legs bad. We're supposed to be using our brains here. We are talking about throwing a fair amount of some people's work into the dustbin. Tell me why, in this article, the use of primary sources degrades the reader's experience. Can you? I'm all ears. Should the article include only those entities where some obscure reviewer has randomly happened to note "This article takes place on Alph Woo" and not include those where the review randomly hasn't? Why. Why. Good grief.
    It there's stuff that's not ref'd, ref it. If you don't have the time or interest to do that (quite understandable), tag it. If there's reason to believe it's maybe not true, delete it. Keep in mind that, for good or ill, works of literature are considered reliable sources for their own contents here. We don't need refs to describe the contents or plot of a movie or book, the rubric is "To check the accuracy of this data, get a copy of the book". Otherwise 90%+ of our plot sections of books and movies would have to be deleted.
    Sorry to be harsh, but if you all are going to be trying to pull stuff like this, you are going to be called to task. It's depressing to see what we are more and more becoming. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In plain English, compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. The latter approach has resulted in several WP:Featured articles: Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarksdale, Indiana

Clarksdale, Indiana (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 "no there there" intersection, there's a single house and that's it. Searching is masked by the place in Mississippi but turned up nothing. Mangoe (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

François Mathieu

François Mathieu (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 & WP:NARTIST. Gedaali (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace (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 cricketer does not even have the most number of first class cricket centuries. For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries. Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu

2013 Rajya Sabha election in Tamil Nadu (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 was an indirect election, fails WP:Notability. I suggest it be either merged or redirected to the page, 2013 Rajya Sabha elections. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irena Justine

Irena Justine (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, most of these sources barely seem to qualify this person as notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems important, and references seem legit. In general, multiple references talking about the subject like this is probably enough to indicate notability. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:*Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [70]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [71] [72]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.43.93.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Dwight Howard

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

This is another WP:NOTSTATS violation featuring indiscriminate trivia. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no good reason for this entire category of articles to exist. A person's notable accomplishments should be found in the article about that person. A person's non-notable accomplishments should be found nowhere. There will always be disputes whether a certain accomplishment is notable or not, and such disputes are valid and necessary. This type of article is essentially claiming that there's a whole new category "Sort-Of-Notable-Ish Accomplishments". There is no such category. If it turns out that articles about brilliant outliers with huge lists of notable accomplishments become too long to read, deal with those individually. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Desertarun (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club

Victoria Park Harriers and Tower Hamlets Athletics Club (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)

Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have remotely enough coverage here to meet NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, bar for coverage is clearly met with over 500 newspaper matches (see [73] and [74]). The component club has existed since 1926 and is home to Olympians and World Championships medallists. Also, when nominating an article, please add relevant WikiProjects to the talk page so that it will be properly categorized by the WP:ARTICLEALERTS bot. --Habst (talk) 16:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a lot of trivial coverage and mentions in articles about related topics. Where is the significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first match from the London Evening Standard is about a murder in a park this group runs in? Do you honestly think these kind of mentions establish notability per WP:ORGCRIT? AusLondonder (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder, some of the sources definitely establish WP:ORGCRIT. I agree that the London Evening Standard murder coverage isn't significant, but that still leaves over 499 matches to analyze. For example, [75] [76] is more than a mention. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 17:16, 4 May 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, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is less than a month old, needs improvement but meets WP:N Orange sticker (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_April_13&oldid=1218732452"